Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
189 lines (176 loc) · 11.5 KB

20210316-meeting-governance.md

File metadata and controls

189 lines (176 loc) · 11.5 KB

Meeting Notes: Governance, Mar 16 2021

Development meeting held @ 3PM UTC in grincoin#general channel on Keybase. Meeting lasted ~ 50 min.

Notes are truncated, and conversations sorted based on topic and not always chronological. Quotes are edited for brevity and clarity, and not always exact.

Community attendance:

  • antiochp
  • anynomous
  • bladedoyle
  • cekickafa
  • dburkett
  • defistaker
  • dtavarez
  • geneferneau
  • goyle
  • hendi
  • joltz
  • lehnberg
  • mcmmike
  • mo5itoo
  • phyro
  • quentinlesceller
  • renzokuken
  • smokeking80
  • trevyn
  • vegycslol

(apologies if I missed someone - submit a PR or contact @lehnberg to add)

Agenda points & Actions

1. Agenda review

The proposed agenda was reviewed and accepted without any changes.

2. Action point follow ups from previous meetings

  • lehnberg: We're finally up to speed on financial reports. It took me a while and I almost went slightly mad but there's a small discrepancy happening sometime in Q4 2019 or earlier that caused numbers not to add up. Details here, mimblewimble#402 Roughly USD 125 at the time. antioch has been paid, but I've not yet update the log for that I just recalled, so need to do that. And Q1 2021 report will be due in April.
    • antiochp: Thanks for doing those @lehnberg

3. @ndcroos ledger bounty

  • cekickafa: It looks like he can do the job.but you are the experts.
  • mcmmike: I really like the idea of bounties and if someone can evaluate the developer I would say lets do it.
    • 👍: renzokuken, anynomous
  • quentinlesceller: Regarding ledger Bounty I think we should lock the bounty for markholis. He seems serious and motivated.
    • 👍: phyro, antiochp, cekickafa, joltz, mo5itoo, dburkett, mo5itoo, hendi, goyle, lehnberg, vegycslol, mcmmike
  • anynomous: Good, should the bounty be split in sub tasks?
  • phyro: Also seems honest so far
  • mo5itoo: He's also very active in the community i can say
  • dtavarez: It would be nice to see some code though
  • quentinlesceller: I think the purpose of the bounty is that mark managed as he pleased and he'll paid based on the deliverables given.
  • lehnberg: Where is that?
  • quentinlesceller: We should lock the bounty for X months if it's not done we unlock it.
    • 👍: anynomous, phyro
  • mo5itoo: On telegram @lehnberg
  • lehnberg: Ah nice
  • quentinlesceller: Very little risk for us @dtavarez
  • lehnberg: Yeah so wasn't aware we'd do locking, but I suppose that's fair? I really don't mind either way - just not familiar with how things are done here usually?
  • lehnberg: The concern without locking is that there's duplication of effort?
    • 👍: quentinlesceller
  • phyro: Also competition and shipping fast to deliver first which should probably not be encouraged
    • 👍: vegycslol
  • quentinlesceller: I mention assigning in the forum post sorry if that wasn't clear.
  • bladedoyle: Will we add any more bounty projects? Is there a list?
  • antiochp: We'll probably end up learning as we go here as well - maybe he needs more people involved, maybe others have good ideas etc.
  • lehnberg: cool sounds good, so what's a fair time to lock it for then?
  • quentinlesceller: Feel free to suggest some more
    • 👍: bladedoyle
  • lehnberg: Does it come with some expectation of a progress update?
  • quentinlesceller: 6 months ?
  • phyro: My question would be how would we get this reviewed. It's definitely something that would need a deep review in the end.
  • geneferneau: I would like to suggest a bounty project, is now the right time?
  • mo5itoo: I think i he should first give an estimation for the work first, and keep the community updated once a week or something and get paid once he's done.
  • lehnberg: Like if we lock for six months, it's not great if someone gives up and then we only realize it's not happening in six months
    • 💯: cekickafa
  • dburkett: Nah, too long. We should at least evaluate after a month or 2
  • anynomous: Maybe it would be good to include at least an adviser who has more experience.
  • mo5itoo: 6 months is too much
  • quentinlesceller: 6 months to do the full ledger support?
  • dtavarez: he could join keybase and ask freely
  • dburkett: He's welcome to take 6 months or more, but we should keep checking in to make sure there's steady progress.
    • 👍: mo5itoo
  • lehnberg: yeah so if we "evaluate the lock" 2 in months than that's cool
    • 👍: anynomous
  • bladedoyle: I think shorts lock time but maybe extended if progress is shown?
    • 👍: dburkett
  • anynomous: 6 months is ok, but can be reconsidered after 2 or 3 months if there is no progress or any reason for concern
  • lehnberg: "status check re the lock in 2 months to see how you're getting on"
  • quentinlesceller: I'd say evaluate the lock in 2 months yes. ok
    • 👍: cekickafa, bladedoyle
  • lehnberg: Or why not even do a monthly check in? is that really that bad? not like a report. Just ask "hey how are things going". Proof of life, that kind of thing
    • 👍: antiochp, phyro
  • antiochp: no I think interim checkins should be encouraged
  • cekickafa: Monthly check is cool
  • antiochp: at least informally
  • quentinlesceller: For sure. That'd be great.
  • cekickafa: monthly update
  • lehnberg: so: lock for now → monthly check in on the forum post?
    • 👍: antiochp, anynomous, dtavarez, phyro, cekickafa, joltz
  • quentinlesceller: yes
  • lehnberg: if awol, we unlock again
    • 👍: quentinlesceller
  • mo5itoo: can he start by giving an estimation ?
  • bladedoyle: Estimates are hard.
    • 👍: renzokuken
  • quentinlesceller: I mean the purpose of the bounty is flexibility. It is you either deliver and get paid or not.
    • 👍: mo5itoo
  • anynomous: Ok, although I guess there are checkpoins for the bounty, like finishing sub tasks?
  • renzokuken: How about an agile / scrum kind of approach? smaller deliveries but more often and each of them needs to bring value ( to the community instead of to the company ) That would be evaluation more often, say every 2 week-long sprint.
    • 👍: mcmmike
  • vegycslol: I don't think putting pressure on him is good
  • bladedoyle: Nobody wants to be a scrum master 😩
  • dtavarez: Who is going to be the scrum master?
  • renzokuken: Btw who are we talking about? I though we discuss general approach and not a particular individual, sorry
  • antiochp: I think the person undertaking the bounty should be free to propose something along those lines - but it would be up to them
    • 👍: vegycslol, phyro, dtavarez, cekickafa
  • quentinlesceller: Indeed
  • antiochp: We are open to different approaches. and flexible
  • hendi: Exactly. If he has issues with "50k once done" he's free to propose checkpoints
    • 👍: antiochp, vegycslol, bladedoyle, phyro, mcmmike
  • quentinlesceller: yes
  • antiochp: lets not overthink this
    • 👍: quentinlesceller, hendi
  • goyle: I think the Ledger bounty feels less like a bounty and more of a regular funding request since its such a big undertaking
  • joltz: The difference is with former payment is made after work done, latter payment made before work done
    • 👍: goyle
  • goyle: it's like a bounty request for another GUI wallet
  • cekickafa: fund split and new members added.thats all.rest is details:smile:
  • dburkett: Also, it allows those who maybe haven't had a chance to prove themselves yet to get funded without risk to the council money.
    • 👍: vegycslol, phyro, goyle

4. Community funding

  • lehnberg: So far there's been four volunteers for signers: anynomous, davidtavarez, hendi, mcm-mike. there's two weeks left of march, and we said in april we'll review the list of volunteers. Anything we need to do at this point in time?
  • antiochp: if anybody else is thinking of volunteering then please do so
  • mcmmike: I just wanted to let everyone know, if you have any questions about me ask me on the forum post , here or in private if needed.
    • 👍: quentinlesceller, renzokuken, defistaker, cekickafa, mo5itoo
  • anynomous: Same here, and if anyone has a problem with me being anynomous (although I Doxed myself many times), let me know.
    • 👍: renzokuken, mcmmike, cekickafa, mo5itoo, defistaker
  • dtavarez: same here
    • 👍: renzokuken, cekickafa, mcmmike, mo5itoo, defistaker
  • anynomous: How many candidates are we looking for, the more the merrier?
  • lehnberg: Yes. If there's anything else to discuss on this, remember that there's #community_fund to raise questions and ideas in.
  • hendi: we should try to get more than us 4, otherwise voting makes hardly sense
  • anynomous: Yes, 5 would be ideal, at least an uneven number
  • cekickafa: i would like to be volunteer as a voting,but i dont like to be involved in mulitisig stuff
  • mcmmike: are we looking for 3 or 4 signers?
  • phyro: I think 5 is a good number
    • 👍: anynomous
  • cekickafa: then you be the 5th
  • vegycslol: 4 of 6 seems fine
    • 👍: phyro
  • anynomous: Should the grin council maybe have some backup signatures, e.g. 4 out of 8 (2 from the Grin council)?
  • hendi: yes. depends on the splitting though. The council should definitely be able to help out if 1 or 2 sigs are missing
  • mcmmike: in total we will have 6 signers where 4 from the community and 2 from council , was this the original proposal? ( I need to look it up)
  • phyro: agree, also solves the 2 going missing
  • hendi: "4 of 6, 2 for council" sounds good to me
    • 👍: phyro, anynomous
  • vegycslol: Is that a 4 of 8?
  • hendi: that's 4 of 6 (4+2). (for the current situation where we have just 4 volunteers)
  • vegycslol: But since council members don't vote, how do you vote with 4?
  • hendi: you don't, we need more volunteers for that. though voting is separate from multisig
  • antiochp: I'd keep the multisig as a detail to be worked out later
    • 👍: hendi
  • anynomous: Yes, I also do not mind not having one of the signatures as long as there are enough members who hold one
  • hendi: ^ my point here was the volunteers should be "voted in" by the broader community, (not the fact that we need more than 4 or an odd number)
    • 👍: antiochp
  • mcmmike: but at the end the council will decide , we can only offer our help at the moment. Also I do see the need for more peolple volunteering.
  • anynomous: Based on my experience an uneven number works better, so I hope some more candidates step up.
  • hendi: @lehnberg already mentioned the call for volunteers in his newsletter. Maybe we can get some more outreach, Twitter, Telegram channel?
  • lehnberg: With four signers, I don't see how we could give a lot of funds to such a group. 3 of 5 would be minimum imo. And ideally, if we're to pick 5, we'd have a bigger pool than just 5 to pick from haha
    • 👍: anynomous
    • 😄: phyro
  • anynomous: @cekickafa said he/she was interested right?
  • lehnberg: so please, do whatever you can to shake out more applicants from the trees
  • cekickafa: i volunteer voting. but phyro wants 5th multisig better
  • vegycslol: I was hoping for at least 4 needed "yes" votes :)
  • hendi: @cekickafa can you please post your application on the forum?
  • cekickafa: ok
  • anynomous: In any case, I think it would be best not to give a lot of funds, simply allocate money and transfer a buffer to begin with
    • 👍: hendi

5. RFC Update

None.

6. Other questions

None.

Meeting adjourned.