I respect what @tfa is trying to say and think we need to listen to it
4 Likes
i dont know enough about it but it seems that losing ownership transfer and multiple owners would hurt the ability to have a team working on website development.
2 Likes
This is still being worked on and will be (re)-enabled with data chains more efficiently.
This is only temporary while some parts in routing ensure double votes/conflicts cannot happen. It was for now only having a vec of size 1 and not handling more than 1 sig in the vaults that meant it was misleading. 100% multiple owners will be the case though.
I think this part is possibly still up for debate, depending on size of dir object verses speed of recovery of the objext etc. It’s worth a debate for sure, even better and RFC, but I know we have been poor recently with community RFC’s (which is wrong to even say community RFC’s as they should all be equal), it’s pure resource at the moment. There is a huge hill we are climbing (hopefully near the top) with the internals of routing and vault interaction that will allow all of this and much more.
If we fix the shared ownership part properly then shared private data etc. will all be solid, but all at once. It’s small steps right now and ensuring the foundation is solid and mathematically proven where possible that will enable many more eyes on the API and how to make sure it’s the most powerful it can be, including pay for Post etc.
I hope that helps, not a defence or criticism, just a view from the other side of this hopefully short lived fence right now.
19 Likes