[Idea] MGRC Q&A Live Streams

nice one. Thanks again for doing this.

It might be worth tagging .dropped tag.

I am pretty flexible with dates. I have a preferred timezone (bst/utc or thereabouts…). but that is about it. I will work around others requirements, if that helps you organise this. It can be a bit like herding cats.

Ty good idea!

Could we maybe get CAP members? or is that too much of a long shot?


Thanks @Souptacular, happy to participate.

I am happy to participate in whatever format folks find useful.

1 Like

I’m down. I’m on Asia time zone - that may work well with Europe or Pacific Time based candidates in terms of grouping.

1 Like

Excellent suggestion @Souptacular. Count me in!


1 Like

@Souptacular I saw that there were a LOT of really good questions being discussed in the megathread. I’ve attempted to catalogue them all in this gDoc (apologies for using Google, but it was the quickest/easiest way to collect+share+collaborate).

I understand that with 5 or so candidates per panel, and about an hour per call, there is nowhere near enough time for each candidate to answer every question. So with that in mind, I’ve pulled a few questions “above the fold”, as suggested high level, important questions. The doc is world writable, so everybody here please feel free to lean in and help us shape this.



I appreciate the importance of knowing who a candidate is, but as elucidated by @amiller post confirming my interpretation of the role of the MGRC as a review committee as appropriately named, and the very fact that zCash is a means to transact PRIVATELY, i’d truly prefer to remain anonymous as long as possible.

the world is a very diverse place full of opinions that younger populations are seemingly unfamilar with, and i would like to say i am surprised with younger generations perception of freedom of expression and its progeny, but as a seasoned lawyer, my determination to be publicly named supporting zcash could subject me to professional and personal ridicule (at very least…) of people in positions to investigate or PROSECUTE.

as a person who already has stated formally that i need not compensation, and properly understand the role of MGRC (HAVING ACTUALLY READ THE ZIP), and find value in merely adding to a project where i hold vested interest… and without disrespect to @Souptacular and similarly situated already public people FROM OTHER CHAINS, the review committee need not be judged by some hour long video charade, but rather ability to perform as expected.

without personal agenda, i am leaning toward joining this conversation anyway, but frankly hate to be joyrideded into it.

1 Like

Wow @alchemydc! Awesome work!

@lawzec: No disrespect taken and I completely understand where you are coming from. I think I and others who help organize this should take greater steps to make any written answers to questions provided to the candidates be advertised, before, during, and after the panels. One of my aims with this was to make sure people can consume their candidate information the way they want. Some people find watching questions answered on video/audio more appealing than a long, written list of questions/answers from 15 people. I don’t want you to feel joyrided into it and maybe we should consider having video off completely during the call to make it fair to those who don’t want to reveal their face and to work against those who may judge people visually rather than by words or merit.

What do people think of the calls being audio only streamed calls? Would taking away video take any value away from this?


Sending video is a choice we make when joining calls, IMHO it adds a lot & the purpose is to learn about the candidates.

Its all about choice & that’s why we’re here, if someone joins audio-only I can respect their decision.

1 Like

I agree @ChileBob.

One concern that I have with the livestream is that there are a lot candidates (we are at 16) which is too many for a single call. Even if rushed, each candidate would likely have less than 3 min given a one hour livestream.

Instead, what if each candidate submitted a video to the forum that includes an introduction and responses to three questions the community agrees upon ahead of time. If someone wished to remain pseudonymous, they would simply submit audio or cover the camera (or even better, use a cool video of a zebra in front of a bookshelf :wink:). That way, the community gets a sense of the person, their “voice” and their perspective on key questions.

Following those submissions, perhaps the foundation (as stewards of this process) might then consider running a primary that would allow the community to vote on a subset candidates to participate in a moderated call.

1 Like

Candidates could host their own AMAs, maybe as a followup? A Jitsi meetup is easy to do & that would be neat.
(Zebra say he’s not busy & happy to help)

Boston why dont you moderate the call, you seem like a good neutral party to my knowledge

1 Like

I also have an issue with this idea coming from someone who works for the Ethereum foundation, I have multiple conflicts of interest with that platform that have NO PLACE IN THE ZCASH COMMUNITY. Legal problems too that I have yet to resolve, so I agree with your sentiment, because Vitalik or his associates have yet to formally respond to what happen to my Ethereum in the DAO in 2016…

The initial idea proposed would be multiple calls with no more than 5 candidates (and ideally 3-4) so it wouldn’t be a call with all 16 candidates. We could definitely abandon that and do video submissions, but that doesn’t have the same feeling of a smaller panel hosted conversations where candidates can politely debate some of the topics/questions brought up.


I definitely agree that there should be a set of smaller calls versus video submissions. To be honest though it’d be nice to have a condensed version of information about each candidate (positions, proposals, etc.) after each call so individuals can weigh their choices accurately. Something akin to a cheat sheet, I suppose.

I’m not sure if this is even feasible but it’d be nice to have despite the trade-offs.

I got this email today, and now I am really confused.

@antonie @nathan-at-least

The live stream on the 18th is actually nothing to do with this thread…? So is the livestream on the 18th mandatory? what is going to be discussed? Can the “Additional” streams be hosted on the zfnd’s channel?

Should we start another thread to collate questions for the stream on the 18th? It feels cluttered having them in this thread, and the main thread it would be confusing again because we have the long essay questions being posted there.

It does feel a bit redundant having this “quick fire” stream when we could do 3 or 4 streams with less people.

@Souptacular I am still really interested in doing a smaller panelled livestream. What do I need to do to help make this happen?

@MGRC-Candidates just a heads up in case you were confused like me.

1 Like

As @antonie mentioned in the Megathread the ZFND stream is to help the Foundation answer questions from the community about the operating structure of the MGRC. It’s not a a ask-the-candidates questions style Q&A, nor is it mandatory.

It’s completely unrelated to Hudson’s stream.

The way ZIP-1014 is written leaves room for clarification about paperwork, contracts, responsibilities, etc… I pointed this out, along with other operational questions in the Megathread, to the ZFND and they decided to host a stream to clarify. If you have specific operational questions about MGRC I would simply join the stream to ask them live.


I am interested in participating in these Q&A calls.