I don’t have any negative feedback myself, I think that it’s generally a good thing.
I’m a bit concerned about the process - I really don’t want to add more overhead but if we can find a proper way to do that without increasing the overhead, I’d generally support it.
I don’t have any negative feedback myself, I think that it’s generally a good thing.
I think a simple admin or community manager cant take on the roll of following up with developers and updating this page. It may take a few minutes conversation on a weekly basis or so for each developer to talk to the person in charge of this task, but that should not eat into their time too much. It looks like Jen voted against this idea. I was thinking that she would be the perfect candidate for this task as I’m sure shes on good terms with all the contributors.
Updated to a proposal
Poll shows the community is in favor
Feedback thus far shows no real negative criticisms that cannot be resolved
I don’t think it should only include paid contributors, I think any task that the DAO decides to execute should be included, whether it’s executed by a paid contributor or not.
Also, without defining the process and an owner that agrees to take on this task, I simply don’t see it happening.
Remember the DAO can decide anything in relation to the protocol (product) and I’m not sure this proposal is actually in line with the DAO’s powers. Not to say it’s not but maybe before the community pushes for something like this, it would be better to establish the responsibilities/powers/limitations of the DAO so that the entire process (not only this one) moving forward will be much more clear and efficient.
Lastly, even though I think transparency re. current tasks is good (and even important), the reasoning in this proposal projects mistrust (“so that we, the DAO, can ensure that the actions being taken place are in the benefit of the DAO”) and the need to do it to keep contributors in check. Some people that work 24/7 on this protocol might see this as bad faith, lose their spirit and leave - which will be counter-productive.
Btw not sure everyone is aware but app tasks are already all here -
I do not feel that those whom contribute to bancors well being, and are not on payroll, should not be included in this list
The bancor DAO and its community are grateful to those whom contribute out of their own good faith. These individuals do not need to be monitored.
It is specifically the ones who are on payroll, the bought and paid for big brains of this project, whom need to be monitored to ensure that what they are doing is alligned with the well being of the dao.
The limitations of the Dao should already be known and specified.
Yudi, the only thing this idea provides is simply information to the dao on what the salary contributors are working on, ensuring that their actions are alligned with the dao. It simply provides clarity. This does not grant the dao additional powers. Its simply information so we can track and see if the gatekeepers of our funds are acting and working responsibly.
If a task has not been assigned to an owner, the task must have an individual or group of individuals working on it that can be displayed.
If an individual is not currently working on a task, then it should show that they are currently not working on a task.
From here, the dao will be able to see who is working effectively, if the work being done is in the benefit of the dao, or if the work being focused on does not currently help the dao and its members. This will be a useful tool for the dao and it is in the best interests for the dao.
I still think it’s important to establish a baseline for the DAO’s role, responsibilities, powers and limitations - important in general and I don’t think these are clearly defined today, many community members are confused.
Also - how do we know who’s getting paid? It’s not something the community can force the foundation to publish. In some cases it might even be risky in terms of security.
This will be much easier once the DAO has its own treasury.
And what happens if some DAO members think it’s important to work on something while others think it’s not? Is the community going to vote on every single task now? Bug fixes? Priorities? More tech savvy members of the community are better equipped to provide tech/security priorities while others are more equipped to provide product priorities. How is that process going to work?
To add to this, Github shows everything being worked on in real time, and in detail. Virtually every time I check in, there’s always something being updated and worked on at all hours of the day, and by whom. So the progress mechanism is already in place. To me this proposal turned into a net negative from a managerial standpoint, as Yudi alluded to, as it seems to be more of a threat. At least I don’t see what is being accomplished here that Github, community calls and published updates don’t already do, outside of a veiled threat to anyone getting paid for their work. Point being, that is a perceptive a person could take from this who is working on the protocol, ie. the unseen risk of having a competent core contributor leave is a tail risk that can do significant damage.
I am simply seeking for clarity and information. What you discussed above can be outlined in greater detail but these are separate from clarity and information
I do not see why it is private to know whom is … not working for bancor … but is on the payroll of the foundation… a simple name tied to work being done should not be a risk to the protocol. When the dao has its own treasury, that has absolutely 0 connection to anything. once again, this request is asking for information on work being done.
The dao and community already have disagreements. This is nothing new. When this information is privy to the dao, and the dao has disagreements, then these matters can be discussed, and if necessary, voted on. This is what the dao is in place for, is it not? Is it not reasonable for the dao to know what is going on behind the scenes so that the dao can try to push the development in the right direction? if what the community disagrees on is not reasonable, then these changes simply should not pass a community vote, so you and the rest of the contributors should not worry about this too much. while some individuals may be unreasonable, the dao is reasonable and logical.
and to @PaperStreetCapital - github does display this information, but it is not organized like how I have defined it above. github updates does not allow the average dao member to materialize and grasp everything that is currently being done by the contributors. In an easy to grasp format, it does not paint the picture so that the average person can fully grasp whether or not the contributors are working on items that are in the benefit of bancor or in the benefit of the dao. So since this is already the case, and this information is already available on github to some degree, then you should not have too much concern with what I am addressing.
Regarding the information being given to us, the community calls and published updates, these do not paint the full consolidated picture like what I am trying to implement. My option will include checks and balances and provide clarity. A community call simply discusses a few chosen topics, and do not provide clarity like that I am seeking. If real hard work is being performed on tasks that need to be accomplished, then the contributors have absolutely nothing to worry about. The only occurrence where a contributor would need to have some concern, is if they are accepting pay cheques and not performing duties that benefit the dao. As a fellow member of the dao, I don’t understand why you would be so strongly opposed to this degree of checks and balances. You would prefer to be left in the dark?
To anyone who feels that this is not right, I would like to remind everyone that while bancor underwent the recent events, contributors decided to place their focus on other various items such as dealing with potential bugs and errors found from v3 audits. I believe its great that this work was done, however, during this specific period, bancor is in the midst of an actual crisis, not a theoretical one thats outlined from a report. So I argue that when problems arise, it is important for the dao and contributors to try to better prioritize items and have discussions around this.
If the dao was aware of everything currently being worked on by the contributors, would the dao be satisfied with the updates done to bancor that are directly … directly… targeted towards resolving the deficit? Or could there have been more man power placed specifically on getting bancor out of this mess ?
I stand by my point, that what I am requesting for is not to the determent of the dao. the dao will benefit from this. This is not intended to be a threat to the contributors whom are being paid. If my choice of words are wrong, then I will go back and edit my statements, because I mean no harm. I simply want what is best for the dao.
Your point re. the security audits is exactly why I have an issue with it - it’s critical to fix these kind of issues that can lead to security exploits - it’s not a “theoretical” problem - imagine the protocol suffers from a security exploit RIGHT NOW.
Anyway, I provided all the feedback I have, it’s now up to the DAO.
My point re. trust (or lack of) is one that shouldn’t be dismissed easily, it can stir up new problems.
I do trust the contributors. However I do not blindly trust the fact that the contributors are always able to prioritize things. This being a decentralized project, it is reasonable to think that without leadership and forward guidance, items being worked on can get mis-prioritized. The dao being privy to this information can help bring to light items that require more immediate attention.
I agree I do not want any new bugs. But with my poor analogy above, if the house is on fire and you’re trapped in it, do you want the fireman to save you first? or put out the flame first?
Thank you Yudi for sharing the link to the github that shows all the items being worked on. After reviewing it, I see little to no work being performed which is directly targeting bancors current main problem at hand. That does not mean that these items aren’t important. They just arent addressing bancors main current problem which is what every dao member has lost sleep and is stressing over.
The development work that’s currently being done to resolve the issue is mostly around things that don’t require a DAO vote, such as integrations that anyone can do.
Items that require protocol changes require the DAO to vote on them and these are being discussed and will only move to development if the DAO approves them.
That repo I shared is just one among a few that are being worked on right now.
In regards to your point re. priorities, I strongly disagree - the house is not on fire - it’s a crisis that will take months to resolve but it’s not an emergency. Emergency means that if you don’t act quickly, users lose all their funds within 24h. This clearly isn’t the case. But a security issue will put the house on fire and will potentially prevent any recovery.
I understand the frustration and I guarantee we all share it, but we have to stay rational, cold and very efficient - this is quickest path to get out of this situation.
The deficit is an issue that can balloon out of control if, and when, the market goes into a recovery phase. So it is crucial that while the market stays within this range, that work that directly targets repairing the damage done is emphasized and stressed.
Should btc or some alt overnight rise dramatically, even if trading is shut down for that specific pool, it will become that much harder to recover from now that the TKN has increased in $. This is something we are all aware of and is my greatest fear.
Should the market remain calm and flat, the contributors would then be able to take their time. But we are not in control of this. We are only in control of how we spend our time.
Wholeheartedly disagree with you, this absolutely is an emergency. Just because you and the “bancor team” doesn’t want to treat it as one doesn’t negate the fact that it is.
Every paid contributor needs to be monitored and held accountable.
My intentions for this page is not to make this a us vs them thing or do this or else an individual is held accountable thing… the contributors are on the side of the dao and are working in the best interests of the protocol.
my reason for wanting this page is so that the dao can monitor the current tasks being worked on so that the dao can ensure that these tasks are alligned with the pressing needs from the dao ( which generally should be what is in the best interests for the protocol )
yes, there will be members of the dao with unreasonable requests, and there will be disagreements on what tasks are more important than others, but the dao should be able to sort through these issues, and a majority vote should keep the dao on track and in the right direction.
up on snapshot
As you can see, not everyone shares your view Expected I guess.
Of course Yudi, I don’t expect everyone to. I also don’t blame him either for feeling the way he does.
In the end, I do expect that the majority of the DAO will react and vote responsibly. Even though there will be more extreme views from both sides of the spectrum, in the end, the dao should be privy to the knowledge so that the dao can make informed decisions on the direction for its members and the protocol.