Remaining tasks

This list will surely need some revision upon contact with reality.

What revisions, if any, are needed given subsequent conversations and where the plan stands today ?

From logs:

diana_coman: jfw: over what interval have you been developing that wallet? if I read correctly it has already had a few iterations.
diana_coman: Sept 2016 in crypto.py, huh.
jfw: right, then and oct 2017 mainly; then redid/expanded the hashes in May 2018 based on the comment.

diana_coman: jfw: was that footnote 3 required by your clients or what?
jfw: Support for sending to 3-addresses: some fiat exchanges we were looking at used them

diana_coman: re footnote 1 , preferable is one thing but required atm and given the tight timeframe you have there anyway, certainly not.
jfw: agreed

diana_coman: jfw: is that the minimum you can get away with currently (ie to actually have a working wallet)?
jfw: hmm, the switching to builtin bignum could be skipped, or I could instead build on the Python though at this point I'm not sure that would save much
diana_coman: doesn't sound likely to save much, no.

diana_coman: jfw: what's the way you normally decide on those ? in there?
jfw: looks like there's some different cases: for S-value, I'd check whether it's done already by TRB with -lows flag (don't believe it is though)
jfw: otherwise: I'd take a guess which way is best, give it a try and see how it's going

diana_coman: at this point and given the little time I'd say it's more likely faster whichever way you usually go about it; ie ~any outside mix in there is more likely to slow you down than make it faster.

diana_coman: huh, that give it a try...how exactly do you "see how it's going" anyway?
jfw: seeing what unexpected difficulties come up
diana_coman: uhm, so you try A and if you run into ...too hard difficulties then you backtrack and try B and if that runs (later on) into harder difficulties you go back to A or search for C?
jfw: (I'm getting the idea I should instead spend more effort on anticipating the difficulties)
jfw: something like that
diana_coman: I don't know if I envy you all the time you had or shudder at the idea there, lol.
diana_coman: a big problem with that sort of approach in general is also that some difficulties are really way better to have than others, *even if they are harder*.
jfw: because they lead to more growth?
jfw: on the envy vs. shudder, I can imagine. How do you go about such decisions?
diana_coman: at times simply because they don't kill the whole thing in the medium/long term; you can say lead to more growth (if you are talking of the whole business indeed) but that is in itself already quite optimistic.

diana_coman: jfw: this sort of choices (to the extent it's about something rather important eg new rpc/btc protocol?) are normally management's decision really; precisely because that's the role of management - to be able to make the correct choice *for the business* not based on "technical difficulties encountered on the route" as such; tech supports aka provides as much relevant info from the tech perspective as required/available.
jfw: ahh. And I'll note that "don't get lost in FFA right now, finish on what we've got" was advised by dorion.
diana_coman: you clearly owe him a cerveza for that at least, lol.
diana_coman: I do gather that dorion is more at ease first of all with marketing in fact; but he's clearly working on growing up the management skills too because yes, crucial.
jfw: might get to buy that cerveza tonight.
dorion will collect on the cerveza tonight.

diana_coman: jfw: what's your current plan there on tackling those and fitting them within your 13th Dec deadline?
dorion: diana_coman agreed on the working on mgmt and how crucial it is.
jfw: First I need to give them time estimates and deadlines and schedule the whole period
diana_coman: jfw: well yes but ...priorities first; hence my first question earlier re what is absolutely crucial.
diana_coman: jfw: I don't really know how fast you work in general and on this in particular (and esp since you haven't touched it in a while if I understand correctly) but as the list stands vs the 2-3 weeks available, it still seems quite a lot & esp a lot of unknowns to me.
jfw: ah ok, transaction signing is first I think, then, hm...
jfw: possibly some parts could be done more manually at first

diana_coman: dorion: part of that is also to lean on the tech to support you, not to end up supporting the tech; not saying this is what happened/is happening here but just making sure it's said in clear, just in case.
diana_coman: jfw: you see, that's part of the question you should ask dorion really - can some parts be done more manually at first? ie is that acceptable/better than ending up moving the whole thing later/crucial etc?
dorion: diana_coman thanks. part of it was dereliction of duty as a manager. By knowing the difficulty for myself the correctly evaluate the tech aspects I left it to him to decide, since that's his expertise/domain. A big problem though was not having in 2017 the current pleasure of reading something like the article just published.

diana_coman: jfw: basically you should provide dorion with some options that are realistic & then ask/discuss on the decision.
jfw: I consider & spell out the options then ask, makes sense
jfw: well "consider" as in consider what they'd look like rather than whether "best" or something

diana_coman: dorion: yes, you are not to ask him the impossible, certainly; but you should have certainly asked for something like this article, way sooner; and jfw should have provided one even unasked, yes; but at least one of you there to have taken some steps.
diana_coman: jfw: yes, you can and should provide as much relevant information as you can; including "what I think it's best from tech pov" but note that it's always with *that* mention: from tech pov;
diana_coman: and you can - if needed - give justification also ie why you'd rather this than that
dorion: diana_coman agreed.
diana_coman: but just as jfw, you wrestle with the tech to find a working way, note that dorion has to wrestle with a much less clearly defined beast - namely the market and the future - to figure out something that works
diana_coman: so you know, you both want to help the other with their task, certainly but part of this is *also* letting and enabling the other to actually do their part.

dorion: and that can't happen without proper reporting on both ends.
diana_coman: dorion: well yes; you need to tell him what the business needs and to communicate as clearly as possible what the priorities are + ask for information/details when/as you require them (and preferably with reasonable time in advance too, obv); he needs to provide you with clear, useful and timely updates on the work and with notice (preferably with enough time in advance) of forks int the road/the need for decisions.

diana_coman: jfw: dorion you know, those s.mg board discussions in public in #t were not just for MP's and my convenience or something.
jfw: aha, could make good reading for illustration of putting this theory in practice
diana_coman: when I say I claim no management expertise I mean it in a very practical term: I have much more experience with (and frankly, preference for) the tech role; it doesn't mean though that I have no idea whatsoever of anything that management does (though I am sure I don't know *all* there is to do there, either).

dorion: diana_coman thanks for spelling it out. I read the s.mg meetings as instructional ; there's a big gap between reading and doing and the doing must be done.

diana_coman: jfw: you know, that summary I linked only the other day for a different reason & all the graphics in eulora series and so on.
jfw: the spelling out of the theory should also be helpful in seeing better what's going on in the reading
diana_coman: yes, not all of the S.MG board meetings are public and not all documents can be public either; that's fine; but look at the pile that is anyway public and realise that there is even more behind it all.

diana_coman: dorion: do you have some clear(er) idea as to what would be absolutely crucial from his tasks there? ie can you give him any help prioritizing stuff in there?
diana_coman: even if you need to discuss further between the two of you, not necessarily right now.
dorion: diana_coman still digesting and also wrapping up for travel. I'ma give it my closest read and ask questions as needed.
jfw: I could perhaps help with that by spelling out the ?'s better as noted here
diana_coman: timing is not the best for sure, yes; as mentioned earlier, I'd rather think it's fastest if you coordinate on this between the two of you and get it done but if there's any help you think I can provide, just ask/speak up.
jfw: will do, thank you

diana_coman: jfw: if you can spell them better, do it at least directly when talking to him, certainly.
dorion: likewise, thank you diana_coman
diana_coman: you're both welcome.

jfw: who would be the best at this point to ask TRB questions? mod6 or trinque perhaps?
diana_coman: jfw: trinque, if he is available.
diana_coman: I'll ask him in his chan too.

jfw: I have some familiarity with the source, and have previously implemented a 'getrawtransaction' RPC; a way to get raw block shouldn't be too different. But good to know when to escalate.
diana_coman: jfw: so join #trinque anyway, I asked him in chan there and see.