Manu Sporny

@frivoal wrote: > I guess I am a little bit confused @frivoal, thank you for taking the time to write that detailed response. It (once again) changed my understanding of...

@frivoal wrote: > I guess I am a little bit confused: as far as I can tell, the pre-existing path of cycling through a CR+PR appears to do exactly what...

> * But I'm not sure why this small set of changes was so difficult — maybe just that the changes happened without anticipating the process, and so Manu had...

> In our defense, there was ZERO coordination with the ReSpec (or Bikeshed, afaik) when this process was put together (which is really disappointing: it's akin to "we don't write...

> As long as the decision is unanimous, you don't need the names of people who voted, since they all support the decision. In case of a majority-only decision, the...

> a failure of the council to decide leaves the status quo standing. Good. I thought we were exploring options where that wasn't the case. If it is the case...

> I asked the ActivityPub lead if he would consider rearchitecting the protocol to include masterless multi-instance operation with active-active replication of CRDT data and permissioned multi-recipient encryption + DID...

> I thought that the primary objective of this group is to arrive at proposals and mechanisms for a positive control over the data - control that cannot be overridden...

> Is encryption assumed at A even if the object is not encrypted. Yes, absolutely. The bytes are encrypted at a higher layer... and come into this layer.

Would it be possible to modify hashlinks so it supports all Datashards use cases? What is the definitive list of reasons that Datashards didn't use Hashlinks? Too much cryptographic agility?...