On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 7:28 PM Eric Maynard <[email protected]>
wrote:

> > IMHO, we should not add a dependency between this proposal and other
> efforts that are not implemented yet, as it would prevent us from moving
> forward on operational metrics until all the pieces are in place.
>
> This is an interesting argument given that the delegation service proposal
> you mention was/is blocked because of another effort that was not (is not?)
> implemented. I still don’t understand how this is materially different and
> thought the delegation service was intended to support these operational
> metrics.
>

Let's not conflate the current proposal with the other discussions about
how Polaris could execute synchronous/asynchronous tasks.  We should
continue the discussions about the Delegation Service and the Async &
Reliable Tasks proposals in their respective threads.  And those
discussions should (IMHO) not prevent us from moving forward on the
operational metrics bits we agree on.

I do think we need to figure out on a high level which direction we’re
> going here rather than just rush forward with the first proposal that
> doesn’t immediately get a -1.
>

I am not sure I understand this statement.  What I am proposing is that we
start implementing the parts that we have consensus on, and we continue
discussing the other parts.  I would not call that "rush forward with the
first proposal that doesn’t immediately get a -1".

Let me repeat my question as I think it is important we decide on an answer
to avoid confusion: As we discussed in this thread and during previous
community calls, the goal of the second proposal is to start small, and
build our way up.  It is not about having a perfect design document before
starting implementation.  Has this changed?

I am personally in favor of that incremental approach.  That being said, if
instead of going that way, the community would rather have a fully designed
system before any of the implementation work happens, that's fine by me.
We just need to clarify it so that there is no ambiguity.

Reply via email to