00:04:59 @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: Are we using ranked or not? I already got the Domain access for monerokon.com but happy to relocate it to stnby. 00:05:35 supposed to be, yes 00:05:56 Alright. @stnby:kernal.eu let's sort this out during the day. 00:07:14 @comradeblin:matrix.org: Huh? I thought you were the new boss 00:07:30 What are the results exactly? 00:07:51 @stnby:kernal.eu: apparently not official yet. but once it is. 00:08:17 @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: stnby 00:08:19 if it's a tie I suggest doing rock paper scissors 00:08:30 @bawdyanarchist:matrix.org: and 00:09:36 @stnby:kernal.eu: Depends whether ranked choice voting is used or absolute numbers 00:10:58 I don't mind 3 people team 01:03:40 when yall get a chance 01:03:40 https://github.com/monero-project/meta/issues/1423 01:03:40 maybe if we get something like this, we can have proper order and organization 01:27:29 We dont usually have 50 people meetings on emergency agendas with the goal of reverting a previous vote due to the loser of said vote deciding to hijack multiple properties 01:29:21 Well, that's fair. 01:29:21 This was not a normal Monero meeting (right?), but a rare emergency involving disputed access to shared resources. 01:29:21 My point is only that these unusual, high stakes situations benefit the most from having the question, counting method and handover written down before voting starts. 01:30:01 With regards to who the 50 people were, surprisingly, i think there were less than 5 that i was unfamiliar with 01:30:17 @slowbeardigger:matrix.org: None of this was possible 01:30:21 <321bob321> meetings about a meeting 01:31:17 there was a meeting, and the leader of that workgroup ignored consensus, veto'd the vote, and kicked all other contributors from various properties 01:31:47 @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: Got it. 01:31:47 I’m not trying to second guess that meeting or its outcome. 01:31:47 I’ll keep the issue focused on whether anything useful can be prepared in advance for future cases, and if not, thats fair too... 01:32:12 The goal of this "emergency" meeting, was to undo a previous vote. In the lead up to this "emergency" meeting, the community members sent thiusands of messages over 5 days regarding what questions they wanted answered and what they wanted voted in 01:32:13 On* 01:32:26 Those were summarized and posted on the agenda, before the meeting 01:32:51 <321bob321> with fable? 01:33:25 The one thing that was not clarified, not asked, was how the ranked voting would work. The suggestion of noninations came maybe 2 days ago, meaning we had 1 day to suggest people outside of the meeting, in the middle of thiusanda of messages 01:33:40 Work with fable needs govt approval 01:33:57 <321bob321> will you approve nioc? 01:34:00 Which, of course, meant that we had to re-ask the question / allow people who have jobs to make their own suggestions and nominations at the meeting. 01:34:09 Oh, I missed that the questions and the two positions were already posted clearly in the agenda. 01:34:09 Thats is on me. 01:34:09 My remaining question is only how “ranked voting” was meant to be counted, since the different interpretations appeared to produce a different second place. 01:34:21 You said at one point, that the list changed during the vote. It did not 01:34:35 People were voting on the wrong items and ignoring the agenda 01:35:04 @slowbeardigger:matrix.org: They didnt. Bawdy's count wasnt ranked. It was total 01:35:22 Thanks for correcting that. I’ll make sure I don't repeat that claim... 01:36:09 The first vote was whether not not we would seek a custody change. This was 35-0-1 result 01:36:54 Since that passed, the second item was allowing people who did not follow along all week, to throw in their names to be the new custodian 01:38:00 thanks for walking me through the sequence... 01:38:00 So basically the custody change passed first, nominations were reopened for people who had not followed the week long discussion, and only then the ranked vote happened. 01:38:00 That clears up most of what I had misunderstood. 01:38:04 The third was to vote on the full list of potentials, which included the ones brought up during the week, and during the prior item. The list changing, was me confirming the choices before moving on to the vote on them 01:39:10 how to count the ranked voted was not decided before the vote, nor was a tie breaking rule. Luckily, i dont think either is needed 01:39:37 Since the primary custodian won by a large margin 01:39:53 defining both before future ranked votes would still be a useful small improvement, right? 01:40:13 They would have been, had the idea been more than like 24hrs old 01:40:56 The whole thing was (imo) malicious 01:41:56 <321bob321> whats the vote for 01:42:05 I'm very pleased that we not only had a large turnout, but that we had a majority of people participating, and that the participants acted in good faith (i didnt see any/many attempts to mess with the voting) 01:42:53 i wasnt joking before the meeting when i was saying that me may need to verify people, since we have been raided over less 01:43:20 today, we had a lot of known community members, some new, some very old, participate. 01:44:38 So this was put together in roughly 24 hours, okay... verification was considered because a raid was possible, and in practice there was broad participation with no obvious attempt to disrupt the vote. 01:44:38 I’ll correct my GitHub comment accordingly. The only future improvement I see is defining the ranked count and tie break in advance when time allows. 01:45:30 Also, today was my first participation here. 01:45:30 :) It was nice 01:45:46 🥲 "nice" 01:45:58 what? hahaha 01:46:04 I'm glad we made a good first impression. (joking) 01:46:22 Today was one of the, if not the, most hectic meeting ive ever been a part of 01:46:25 Nice as in interesting and welcoming, not calm 😂 quite a first meeting 01:46:58 I just hope we continue improving and doing what's best for the community <3 01:47:31 Its usually not like this. 01:48:06 @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: Noted 01:48:27 Things arent the hardcoded or red taped. Example, for ccs, each one if different 01:48:48 @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: I was researching and noticed that 01:49:06 Certain proposers, like full time devs working on the project for 10 years, arent viewed under the same microscope as an unknown person with emdashes in their proposal 01:49:31 good ol' emdashes 01:49:55 Changing the topic a bit 01:51:01 you should attend the mrl or no wallet left behind meetings 01:51:40 Will try to 01:51:43 Its not always about voting, but about finding a time for people to get together and give updates 01:51:44 been a bit busy 01:53:07 I built Nodewatch, a non custodial plugin that verifies payments inside WordPress without a payment processor or required backend (No monero-rpc_. It was recently accepted into the WordPress.org plugin directory, but the important part now is real adoption and testing: 01:53:07 https://wordpress.org/plugins/nodewatch-monero/ 01:53:07 I also opened an issue about helping revive MoneroWP and seeing what work could make sense upstream, without assuming the maintainers want to replace its current design:[... more lines follow, see https://mrelay.p2pool.observer/e/rY2a7JULdmxzQ2NZ ] 01:53:54 #monero-community-dev:monero.social 01:53:55 Less likely to get buried in there 01:54:11 ty 07:58:41 03:29:21 This was not a normal Monero meeting (right?), but a rare emergency involving disputed access to shared resources. 07:58:41 the only other ones I remember as chaotic was whenever MRL was talking about big blocks :) 07:59:31 on a different but related topic, someone mentioned the monerokon room is not bridged, but afaik that was not done via my bridge. Figure that out and if needed I can send my bridge there. 07:59:52 Good to know, i still think the issue I opened on the /meta github is worth to look at... 07:59:52 and regarding the voting situation, a cleaner way :) 07:59:54 (as in, existing bridge during the events) 08:04:10 @slowbeardigger:matrix.org: https://mrelay.p2pool.observer/m/matrix.org/qVzYgGajcMhGNpJdVtIZIRPg.jpeg (Screenshot 2026-07-12 at 12.42.15 AM.jpeg) 08:07:54 slowbear i installed xmrpay on my wordpress. for my umbrel setup, running the install of gmp and bcmath was quite an ordeal through docker compose commands, but i got them installed. now, my monero node uses http digest authentication, but there is no where to add the credentials. can we work on a solution? 08:09:30 @tomdooley:matrix.org: Hello, absolutely. 08:09:48 Node unreachable (401) you getting, right? on dev tools, network. 08:10:37 Also, you wanna use only that one Umbrel node, or the Umbrel one with a couple of backup ones? 08:13:19 just my local node 08:13:43 excellent, thank you. 08:13:43 i will sit down and work on it a bit later, if ok if i ping you as soon i put the fix/update? 08:25:56 Thank you guys for your overwhelming support, I will not disappoint you with the trust you have given me. 🫡 > <@ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> 45 attendees 08:27:30 I vow to respect future community votes and will hand over access if the community deems necessary. > I hope the new custodians will respect future community votes and hand over access if deemed necessary 08:28:21 @slowbeardigger:matrix.org: https://mrelay.p2pool.observer/m/matrix.org/XmNDWOsVBdqfmgszJTQfpnrs.jpeg (Screenshot 2026-07-12 at 1.27.53 AM.jpeg) 08:28:32 looks good another node 08:29:19 @tomdooley:matrix.org: thanks for the feedback <3 08:29:19 tbh never crossed my mind a local node with auth 08:29:19 now, thanks to you, ill add that to the xmrpay suite :) 08:29:45 Ajs has been very corporative in transferring the accounts. Transfer for twitter and bunny is complete, YouTube and monerokon.org are progress. I'm being intentionally slow and carefully to not mess up anywhere in the process. 08:30:24 Good stuff ceetee 08:30:59 Detailed progress will reported in the monerokom room 08:32:48 @slowbeardigger:matrix.org: https://mrelay.p2pool.observer/m/matrix.org/rRiHslAEUHfosRDZpjfuBBVF.jpeg (Screenshot 2026-07-12 at 1.30.56 AM.jpeg) 08:32:52 this button says copied but doesnt actually copy the payment address 08:33:11 @tomdooley:matrix.org: Noted, will open issues on the repo to keep track of it 08:38:42 I will go to bed now, feel free to open issues here: https://github.com/SlowBearDigger/xmr-pay-woocommerce 08:38:42 i will work on fixing the bugs as soon as possible, and thank you for helping xmrpay grow <3 11:25:22 > the controversy with anonero proposal, is that plowsof asked for access to make issues on the repo, and was not granted as much. an anonero fork was created that implemented (iiuc) all of the proposed features 11:25:22 no, the controversy is that plowsof has been gatekeeping despite clear support from the start. even you sid youd support multiple times, but are bending the knee to plowsofs games 11:26:02 tell me another CCS that has been treated like this. we are not obligated to review, test, or merge any of his vibecoded chatgpt features 11:26:47 if you all want to block a project that has helped improve the monero wallet ecosystem from continued development, then be my fucking guest 12:00:04 DataHoarder: It was pretty chaotic when some of the Monero community infra/channels were going to be absorbed into an LLC run by some community members. In that instance, it was rejected. 12:00:53 yeah as if 13:15:08 @r4v3r23: Is your self-hosted Forgejo open for registrations? Is your repo open for contributions? 15:15:26 @user2570:unredacted.org: yes its open 15:19:34 where were all these concerns during the first CCS that got funded instantly? 18:23:01 "no, the controversy is that plowsof has been gatekeeping despite clear support from the start. even you sid youd support multiple times, but are bending the knee to plowsofs games 18:23:13 " 18:23:17 he's new... 20:55:00 “ I vow to respect future community votes and will hand over access if the community deems necessary” <—- thank you, sir 20:56:34 godspeed to the new team and may we avoid such drama for a while 22:12:02 @tomdooley:matrix.org: Hello, I hope you're doing well 22:12:02 https://github.com/SlowBearDigger/xmr-pay-woocommerce/releases/tag/v1.1.4 22:12:02 please feel free to test 22:16:30 https://wordpress.org/plugins/nodewatch-monero/