We would require the second fund to also subscribe to the
āAppropriate and inappropriate uses of the Grin Development Fundā section [1]
but allow them to deviate on āRequest for Funding Processā and " Decision Process" as they see fit.
I would omit the ā33BTC can be split to smaller groupsā.
My intention is that both funds are general purpose, i.e. open to any funding request as deemed appropriate in [1], rather than limited to specific projects.
Earmarked yes, but that does not mean such a budget needs to be transfered directly, just slowly increase the amount once applications for proposals come in.
In the long run, good to shift towards the Unified grand model:
What I like about this proposal is that it is plain and simple. Although I am missing that some funds would go to Grin++, although this could be part of the funding from this new council.
That is true, and from that point of view I could even say that no change is needed since I cannot recall a single time that funding was denied unjustlyā¦at least, none that I can recall.
I am certain that whichever fund is applied for, Grin++ will find support from the community for its funding.
Anyhow, still in favour of having some seperate funds like in this proposal to fast track the smaller community oriented projects, which are not that interesting for the core developers.
It works reasonably well, but there is place for improvements. The last time we decided that no changes was needed, I think roughly a year ago, still new problems arose and especially few community projects came forward (except iron belly and Grin++ Mobile).
-Having a seperate fund for community projects and community members who have autonomy on its spending would certainly improve the feeling of empowerement of the community which some apparently do not feel with the current system.
-From the unified grand proposal idea also somethings can be taken. We need more structure and templates for writing proposals and a second pair of eyes before putting them to community scrutinization which sometimes end in a lot of avoidable negative sentiments.
It wins with simplicity and minimal additional structure.
Iām not sure if this has been discussed here but Iām assuming responsibilities for the ācommunityā side of this would involve managing and overseeing the forum (here) among other community communications channels. Iām not sure if we need much else decided ahead of time, and hopefully we can assume things will evolve over time.
Are people willing to volunteer to form the initial 6 person group (for 4-6 multisig)?
Is there enough interest to explore this further?
The reason Iām asking this is its unclear how we ādecideā which approach is best beyond simply picking one and moving forward with it. If we cannot get 6 people to volunteer then this is probably a non-starter to begin with, so lets rule this in or out now.
This solution has some obvious advantages (āsimpleā, ābetter than current stateā) and its potential disadvantages (āno measurable improvementsā, ānot perfectā, ādoesnāt make everyone happyā) can still be tackled later on, if the need arrives.
From me this is a for this proposal, though I certainly would/will give a +1 to other proposals as well.
For now this is also my preferred flavour among the proposals. I think Grin++ should be funded for any interesting proposals, but there is no need for a separate council with funding since two councils is enough counting the active community members.
I am also volunteering to be part of this council, although I would prefer to keep most of the Grin fund as it is and only create a wallet that holds the funds necessary for funding the first few proposals and increase the BTC on this wallet only when more proposals come in.
I am also volunteering to help in discussing interesting proposals for Grin++. Grin++ could be a nice playing field to try new things that can later be implemented in the core wallet if they are found to be stable and advantageous.
On the long run, it would be good though to move towards a bit more standardization of proposals, funding request etc. The grand proposal system is therefore something to slowly move towards by improving the standardization of funding requests.
Grin++ should not even be consider a topic of argue from what i see they are putting all of their passion into this project. They should be on the payroll by default. The great benefit is: they react, posting their progress without having big arguments with the community about not being transparent.
No matter which fund they apply to, Iām sure both Davids as well as other grin++ devs would get funding. DavidT got funded for grin++android. With the new tbd group they donāt even have to ask the ācouncilā for funding, just the ācommunityā.
While simple is good, and this approach does meet the goal of getting more people involved, Iām not entirely convinced this solves the underlying issues. For starters, it doesnāt seem to accomplish Yeastās original stated goal of having dev team autonomy, so Iām not sure why this is currently seen as the preferred approach.
But it also makes it less obvious where people should be applying for funding. Submitting a public funding request is already problematic for many - most people donāt like to have their salaries/rates published publicly like that, and many people canāt post their rates publicly for a number of reasons. But now they must choose which political faction to apply from, and it might not be obviously clear which is best. This could lead to them having to submit 2 different funding requests if the first one is submitted to the wrong(?) one.
I also think it could just permanently solidify the division in the community. I prefer a solution where the funds have clear intentions, rather than just splitting down the middle(-ish) and calling it a day.
This is not a regular job, 7/24 with social security,lunch cheq business. Many people contributed,as yourself, without paid and only for the devotion and contributing still.
if worried or ashamed or fearing of govts ,etc; contributing for, he/she could apply anonymous,stay like that.
And gradually will be paid partly after contributions,bounties.So being anonymous wont be a problem.
Rules are clear.
We better Do not overcomplicate things,proceed forward.
These seem like orthogonal concerns. Reluctance to post rates in public is an entirely different issue to that of knowing where to best direct a funding request.
On the topic of sharing rates in public - I suspect there would need to be some level of transparency involved. Anybody opposed to sharing this level of information would likely find contributing to an open-source project out in the open like this a poor fit.
Maybe the best way for Dev autonomy is to simply submit a request.
In the end I think the names of the councils do not matter so much. So lets say some community members would join the āGrin++ councilā, and you or other Grin++ developers would submit a request:
the council would provide feedback, and support any sensible request.
The same request would be submited to the āGrin Community councilā:
the council would proide feedback, and support any sensible request
Probably the same active community members would with this proposal be part of the āGrin Community councilā as those who would be part of the āGrin++ councilā if we would go for that governance model.
Therefore, the end results would be the same.
Since the end result would be roughly the same, having two councils is better than three since we would have more strength and less devision. Even with this split council model, I think there will be some overlap and support between the councils, but hopefully also some more community involvement and some more efficiency since each council can focus on their own areas of interest.
for this proposal, though I certainly would/will give a +1 to other proposals as well.