1) a detailed plan, further talk on the details of how to proceed with the agreement reached at the other Roundtable, would be one thing, but i really hope poeple come into that talk with the idea that the pro/cons have been weighted and this IS the way forward, now its more a matter of how Exactly it will be rolled out.
2) incentives, can we somehow increase the incentives to run a full node?
3) Make peace, it's obvious we need a competing impl. , but how do we go about making sure Classic stays relevant? and howdo we get Core and Classic teams not only coexisting but also work together on some things. there will be many BIP most will be MUCH less controversial than BlockSize, these BIP need a lot of man hours put into them, why not have Core work on BIP123 while Classic works on BIP124, when they are done, both teams review each other's work, and at the end of the day BIP123 and BIP124 both get done, and we know they've been peer reviewed and securitized.
the overall goal should be to get everyone on the same page.
bips should not be a core controlled thing.. for instance gavin recently made a bip that ANYONE core/xt/bu/bitcoinj could all implement .. by having individual bips for individual companies will just cause more debates and make bip 100001 something we would see soon..
bips should be something ANYONE can implement and not be branded/copywrited/limited to a company.
bips should be in draftform and tweaked and improved on and then finalised.. rather then making 100000 different bips until one of them sticks
Actually, along these lines, bibs should not have terms that force an issue and change consensus terms that appear to be forced on the Bitcoin community. I'm talking about apparent hard forking terms in xt and classic.
Yes I realize that there has been a lot bandied about regarding what is consensus and what does it take to achieve it, and there may be some practical difficulties getting agreement about what is consensus and what it takes to achieve it.
Accordingly, attempts at imposing hard forks, seems to cause unnecessary contentiousness, but really if bibs are submitted and they are allowed to be reviewed and commented upon by Bitcoin stakeholders, then they shouldn't cause contentiousness if they don't attempt to force new rules.
No matter what, there is some value in providing some road maps regarding what are the meanings and application of consensus based decisions and whether and under what terms would a hard fork be imposed (would it be contentious or not if there are ways to accomplish with broader levels of support rather than appearing to be imposed)
Finally, I have frequently understood that changes to Bitcoin take a conservative approach and the bip process puts the Burden of persuasion and production on anyone proposing to implement changes to Bitcoin. To me,. Such process does not seem broken, because the status quo should deserve the benefit of the doubt and burdens of persuasion and burdens of producing evidence should exist on any party proposing changes and to convince a sufficient number of other stakeholders that a change is warranted and necessary but frequently such process receives a lot of hype, as if it were broken, so in that regard there may be additional value in clarifying the process too in order that people can have easy reference sources to understand that Bitcoin, it's process and its governance (to the extent there is governance) is not broken.
Edit: one more point. Frequently, it seems to me that I see suggestions in various Bitcoin discussions and even assumptions that some of the changes "have to be" accomplished via hard fork, and that just seems to be erroneous thinking. I personally am of the belief that a hard fork is neither needed nor necessary unless there is either near unanimous agreement that something has to be fixed, is actually broken or the solution is nearly completely noncontentious (which would make hardforking non contentious by default not something that is imposed by either 75 or 90%, but am I too pie in the sky to believe that we can achieve nearly unanimous agreements in the Bitcoin space?)