Community Council (CC) meeting held @ 10 UTC in grincoin#general channel on Keybase. Meeting lasted 95 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.
Last meeting's notes here
mcmmike : Based on this We need a vote here from the CC members for this
anynomous: For the ease of reading, the proposal can also be found here
mcmmike : I should relay a message: >@dtavarez "I support 10% if the contributor agrees. If he/she can decline the offer due a strong argument."
anynomous: This is in the proposal. This proposal is very basic but it does take a middle ground and balances all the forum discussion input here: The main point is that we want to implement, stimulate change. The only way to do so is by starting to increase usage of Grin. However, Rome was not build in one day, neither is and will Grin be build in one day. We chose to organically stimulate and grow the use of Grin. When the ecosystem matures, so will the use of Grin by the council. I also vote in favor.
future3000: I support 10% paid in Grin as the CC funding standard.
anynomous: With thumbs up or down, please let me know. Do you vote in favour or against.
Community Decision: proposal to default 10% minimum payment to devs has passed. See proposal notes for more details
mcmmike: The agenda item indicates that the Wallet exchange gives invalid balance time to time, discussion on possible solutions. Does anyone have further information on this?
defistaker: I asked mo5itoo, just before meeting (2 hours ago) if the issue is resolved or he wants it to be on agenda.
mcmmike: Ok, so no update here. We can add it to the next meeting*&*. @defistaker let us please find if @mo5itoo has any information on github.
👍:_defistaker
relevant documents
mcmmike: We from the GRIN CC agreed on the following and would like to make a proposal:
We need some help from the community and thank you for the proposal. As we internally agreed we would like to start with the following offer:
For the next 3 months we would like to compensate as follows:
For groundkeeping work and helping the GRIN community.
We decided to start as such to not raise the expectations for future proposals and keep the running costs in order. This is for the first 3 monthes after this we can agree to discuss further compensation.
jankie1800: This is reasonable to me; and with such an offer I can say I am deeply grateful for the the opportunity to work with everyone involved
defistaker: Thanks for the generous offer!
anyomous: In general we want to stimulate to work in sub groups, so everyone in the community can work with focus on what he/she likes.
future3000: @jankie1800 are you happy to be apart of a subgroup with other CC members so we can directly liaise with you? Also, what's the status with the Grin newsletter? Was it one of you who was going to be doing that?
jankie1800: absolutely. I would consider this an excellent use case of the groundskeeper role
future3000: @jankie1800 has stated "Working time: 14 hrs/week". There are no clear objectives we have set out.
phyro: I personally think it would make sense to start when we know what objectives we have
jankie1800: allow me to re-state them as I agree with the council assessment, as the role would be fluid. The 14 hours a week will be an absolute minimum amount of time; though the task delegated by the council(sub-group liaison etc) may take more time.I use the 14 hrs as a baseline
mcmmike: Why dont @jankie1800 and @defistaker get together and create a list of tasks and we can add to it if needed? I think from the meeting point of view, its clear what needs to be done. Also on Discord a user contacted me because the GRIN website has some design flaws.
Community Decision Compensation for @jankie1800 and @defistaker Approved. Crowd-source deliverables on forum to begin action
future3000: Updating the Grin website could be something we add to the next meeting agenda. We've had a few discussions about it before in the Grin telegram group.
defistaker: Can CC update/maintain official grin.mw site?
mcmmike: yes we can send PR on the official MW repository there is a repo called site or website where we can do it.
relevant documents
anynomous: The definition of the API looks promising.
phyro: I'd have to review the API, but I'm interested why you picked OpenRPC @scilio, I'm assuming this means that the coinswap service will be written in Rust
scilio: Not necessarily. OpenRPC is language agnostic. I just felt it was more formal and would make reviewing the API easier for the other developers.
phyro: I see, my assumption was based on their generator. Though the last time I checked it was over a year ago and it had support for generating clients from the spec for rust and typescript
scilio: We don't have to even use OpenRPC, but by defining the schema this way, any developer can implement the APIs unambiguously. You may be correct. I haven't looked for generators yet.
anynomous: Did you already look into the different options? Rust, GO, ...
scilio: I'm not yet ready to commit to a specific language, but I did familiarize myself to an extent with all 3 of the grin libraries
future3000: What Language are you most comfortable with?
scilio: I'd be comfortable with any of the 3 languages. My only reason for delaying the decision is I want to spend some time with the build configurations for each to see which will require the least amount of maintenance in the future.
future3000: Do you have much experience using Rust or C++?
scilio: I have the most experience with java, but I'm not going to reinvent the wheel by rewriting the major grin data structures and cryptography in java. Of the 3 being discussed, Rust is the only one I've never used in production code before.
vegycslol: Personally I'm cheering for rust or go (or haskell :D)
scilio: C++ has the most mature crypto libraries. Rust is quickly catching up. Go is great for services. They all have advantages :)
mcmmike: I would like to move the technical discussion to the forum or after the meeting. As we still have to take a vote on your proposal in general. Or does anyone have an objective we should not proceed with @scilio?
phyro: can someone remind me what the latest agreement was? the forum thread was quite messy :/
mcmmike: side note: @defistaker @jankie1800 We need decision notes on the meeting notes, so we know on a high-level what we agreed on and not read though the whole meeting notes. something for your list to add.
scilio: I'm still going with my original request. I just chose to define APIs first in order to address concerns about my abilities and knowledge.
mcmmike: ok we now voting on (https://forum.grin.mw/t/request-for-funding-scilio-coinswap-implementation/9149) £10,000 for Milestone 1 £15,000 for Milestone 2 £25,000 for Milestone 3 for yes 👍 - for no 👎
kurt2: Is milestone 1 a good indicator of the skills to make the subsequent milestones or not at all?
scilio: I am only requesting post-payment after approval of deliveries. So a vote may not even be necessary at this point. I'm more or less just looking for a commitment to the project, and to make sure there is nobody against the idea or terms laid out.
future3000: I assume we are voting now on milestone 1 and will vote again for milestone 2 & 3?
mcmmike: good question, how do you think we should do it?
future3000: Well logically we should vote to approve payment after each milestone is met.
phyro: I agree. The review we make of the milestone is sort of the vote for the payout as well
kurt2: I am personally voting against. I have nothing against Scilio and I am willing to change my mind if he is willing to accept payment after something that is actually a coinswap demo project at the minimum. I have not yet understood why the first milestone is an indicator of the subsequent skills needed to make the project . it seems the price for the first milestone is inflated. it would be probably fine for someone with a reputation but I don't think it is for someone with no reputation like scilio. by respect too for the previous contributors whose most of them used euros by the way and not pounds. I don't think monero for example would be willing to fund the current request of scilio in their funding process. Plus with the new funding of the two community administrators I am sure we will find contributors willing to show track records to implement coinswap very quickly!
phyro:
kurt2: "Plus with the new funding of the two community administrators I am sure we will find contributors willing to show track records to implement coinswap very quickly!"
I'm not sure how this one follows. I don't expect any new candidates writing the coinswap because we hired 2 administrators. Also, implementing a minimum demo isn't really a small task imo @scilio do you plan on being more active here as you are building this?
kurt2:
scilio: "Also, implementing a minimum demo isn't really a small task imo @scilio do you plan on being more active here as you are building this?"
It is not. that's the cost you pay if you don't want to deanonymze yourself. we should build a good reputation. the risk is huge and totally unnecessary to take given we have community administrators that will help to find people for such project very quickly. the risk is too big and not reasonable in this context. Monero would not go forward with such a funding request. and they would be right.
cekickafa:
kurt2 : "... and they would be right"
monero give all funds to 1 person without multisig. i dont think so man, they are a measure
scilio: I designed the 3 milestones to be an equivalent amount of work. So by that measure, the price for the first milestone would be deflated. I did this on purpose to strike a balance between receiving funding needed to dedicate my time to this on the one hand, and earning the trust of the community on the other. If you feel milestone 1 is less work, I think you may be overlooking important parts of it. That's my fault for not listing all of the minute details. One major part of it that is easy to overlook is that the encryption and decryption algorithms must be supported in order to implement the API validation. That's a major chunk of work.
jankie1800: We could headunt devs but imo the ones who find us, who see value in the project are the ones who should be prioritized during hiring. my 2 grins
mcmmike: I am currently not sure how we should proceed with this item on the agenda, as this discussion is going into a direction I did not expect.
kurt2: I think funding request of first milestones should not be inflated by unknown contributors. that is probably one of the basics to put in place. especially when the skills to make the first milestone do not echo at all the skills to make the further milestone.
defistaker: Is it an option to unify 1st and 2nd milestones so that there are only 2 milestones and payments are done with equal amounts 25000.
scilio: You are asking me to work for 4 months without payment. This is not an option for me unfortunately.
kurt2: unknown contributor = anonymous with no proven track records and 0 reputation in the community (!= anonymous)
phyro: we made such decisions before though, Gene was the same
anynomous: It is not ideal I agree. I would have preferred milestone 1 and 2 to be merged. But if we are to inflexible, I do think we make it that much harder to find developers. Since I do not see anyone else having volunteered to take this on.... beggars can't be choosers. The only risk we have is overpaying for milestone 1 since it value decrease somewhat if scilio would not be able to finish milestone 2 or 3.
scilio: I'm asking for post payment for this very reason. If it is required for someone to work full-time for 4 months before being eligible for funding, then you will likely struggle to find dedicated developers.
future3000:
kurt2: it is not. that's the cost you pay if you don't want to deanonymze yourself. we should build a good reputation. the risk is huge and totally unnecessary to take given we have community administrators that will help to find people for such project very quickly. the risk is too big and not reasonable in this context.
anynomous: To me, although not ideal, it is acceptable.
phyro:
anynomous :"Since I do not see anyone else having volunteered to take this on.... beggars can't be choosers. The only risk we have"
It doesn't decrease. Even after all his milestones, there's an additional milestone which is making the existing wallets implement 1-1 self-spends, label these outputs and take care of this logic in the wallet.
scilio: Hopefully I can help with those milestones too, when the time comes :)
phyro: which is also why I'm cheering for Rust, because he'll need 1-1 self-spend for tests. So they may come for free for grin-wallet
future3000:
mcmmike : "I am currently not sure how we should proceed with this item on the agenda, as this discussion is going into a direction I did not expect." We keep discussing, then we vote. Today.
anynomous: Agreed, today As I stated before, although I agree with @kurt2 that we take a risk which is not ideal, this risk is acceptable. The other side of the coin is dropping the proposal, which to me, would provide a bigger risk, the risk of having the whole implementation delayed for indefinite time, which is much worse.
future3000: Grin also needs transaction in terms of new development. CoinSwap is the hottest proposal we've got atm. I think most of the community would be disappointed if we didn't move forward with @scilio 's request.
anynomous:Ok, if no one objects, we continue with a vote. All in favour, say yaaaa, thumbs up, party, rocket or otherwise express your excitement. All against, thumbs down.
Community Decision Request for Funding @scilio (CoinSwap Implementation) Approved
cekickafa: Congratulations @scilio
scilio: Thank you, everyone ❤️! I can't wait to get started!
Meeting adjourned