23rd April 25
Last updated
Last updated
Recording:
Attendees:
Minutes:
1. Parameter Committee Proposals (a) Proposal to increase Plutus mem unit limits (b) Proposal to change Plutus v2 cost model
Proposed Action: Submit as a single Governance action. JK: Want to ensure the reasoning behind putting both together as one governance action is explained fully
Action: Start to socialise proposal using IO, CF (and Intersect) comms. KH: Follow on action: Start to create proposal (action on Parameter Committee) Decision: Plan passed unanimously from members present.
2. Feedback from A Tier List Roundtable
Round Table Organised by CF on 22/04 - covered a set of priorities compiled by CF Lots of focus on L2 technologies, concern expressed at Alternative node implementations within CF. Primary focus of Peras rather than Leios due to faster settlement opportunities. Concern over increased costs for Leios. KH pointed out that this is also the case with Peras. ND: Concern over focus on transaction layer rather than settlement layer. Also expressed concern over rushed timescales related to budget. Concern over demands on SPOs and incentives to implement these changes. JK: Endorsed the comments above highlighting experience with Mithril. KH: Acknowledged that parameter committee needs to take into account costs and incentives structures. KH: Reflecting on apparent community demand for a level of oversight into transaction layer beyond initial L1 scope set out initially. This may be something that addressed in upcoming elections ND: Gap has been identified but perhaps this is identifying a gap that should be filled by a similar committee that is focussed on L2 layer MG: Very happy to help utilise CF for creating more round table discussions such as those discussed above. KH: Request for greater documentation. This related mostly to transaction layer documents rather than core documents. Feedback was primarily that need of documentation may come primarily from Transaction layer to help new DApp Developers. Would like to see all ledger eras into one collated set - should be covered by ledger project. ND: This is useful information to help feed into scope of maintenance contract Blueprint work
Action - Kevin to share this report
3. Open meetings with DReps/community
JK: Is there any scope for setting up our own community outreach or might a better strategy be to go to community events. KH: Open to wider participation in the TSC’s own open TSC meetings. Also very happy to build into going to existing open sessions - a number of these sessions are in the TSC budget. ND & JK: Should look into how TSC can best reach the wider community. These perhaps should be focussed on general wider engagement rather than focussed on the day to day running agenda of TSC.
Decision: Open TSC meetings going forward to all Intersect members Action: Duncan to ensure TSC meeting is available via Discord to Intersect members
4. Rearranging the call with the Intersect board
Need to rearrange meeting with Ger for Intersect Board
Action: All TSC members to respond to Kevin’s Doodle Poll in TSC slack channel
5. Maintenance Contract: Update from Delivery Assurance
MD: No further progress from last weeks meeting due to annual leave Action: to revert to previous version of maintenance contract and set up calls with IOE KH: Work progressing well, particularly on UTXO HD, Network improvements and Genesis. Several items remain in backlog. JK: 10.3 has now been released ND: This moves onto a new compiler. Initially some performance issues identified but these have been resolved. Overall performance generally improved. - Endorsed by KH. KH: Next release will be coordinated with SPOs in coming weeks. KH: May be able to significantly help the operating equipment required. ND: Key risk to be managed is to ensure no failures due to growth of UTXO sizes. Results to date are positive but have not been benchmarked yet.