As it stands, it is unclear what is currently in the works in terms of development and prioritization. The proposal is simple:
Require there to be a well-defined and clear (layman’s terms) roadmap and development plan added to the bancor.network website. This roadmap would be “fluid”, as DAO activity can dictate one feature prioritized over another. Priorities on specific features should be clear.
Require the roadmap to be updated weekly on Wednesdays.
Development plan should include what is currently being worked on, what will be worked on in the future, and estimated times for the completion of these features.
This page should include the number of developers actively working on the protocol that week.
A feature such as this should be simple and quick to implement, and will give valuable insight to the DAO allowing for the prioritization of specific features.
I fully support this idea. The amount of obfuscation as to what’s being worked is very frustrating. Being told an idea is not worth development time creates the question: what is actually being developed, why, and when will those resources be freed up?
I’ve actually asked for this kind of itemization in the Discord server.
“Two engineers preparing a scoping study on yield-generating feature XYZ; preliminary report on protocol impact XX/XX/XXXX.”
The answer I was met with was that Bancor walks a fine line with regards to being classified as a security. This would blur that line. Instead, it’s piecemeal presented all over the place - as blog posts, as Discord announcements, as GitHub edits, as tweets, and a community call.
None of the above really constitutes clear direction, resource loading, intent, deliverables, etc. I think the Foundation needs to look at hiring someone with a project management background to assist the protocol, in all honesty.
I would argue the roadmap doesn’t have to be on the bancor website, Trello or something similiar would be sufficent for now as we wouldn’t need to spent any dev ressources creating it and this proposal could be realized asap. But I don’t have an idea how much time a new website with the UI etc. would take but I imagine several weeks to few months.
Why on Wednesdays? I think it should be updated atleast once every two weeks but it can be on any day of the week really.
Other than that I fully agree and think this a very important proposal, none to minimal dev time but possibly big improvement to transparency and therefore DAO decision making and also regaining trust.
The DAO can’t decide about (the priority of) new proposals if it doesn’t even know what is getting worked on currently. This issue leads to pointless discussions worsened by the asymmetry in what core contributors know compared to what regular DAO members know. Sure, there is github and the dev channel but for not so technical people it is hard to even get a rough idea what is getting worked on following those.
Ultimately this issue limits the DAO’s ability to make an informed decision and it enables anyone to disregard proposals simply by claiming the dev time is not worth it. After all there always is potentially some more valuable work going on. It sets the bar very high for any even slightly dev time intensive proposal which could discourage community members from creating proposals at all.
This is not true. As someone who took one or two programming courses in college, it would take me less than three hours. For an experienced developer, it would take even less than that. Its a simple page. Doesnt have to be pretty. Im sorry if that seems blunt, but truly it does not take long.
Its important to add it to the website as there are already too many channels with information. Reddit, twitter, discord, telegram, dao forum, etc.
Other than that, I agree. The lack of developer information limits us when making decision and voting on proposals.
I don’t believe any contributor has an issue with a roadmap…but a roadmap can only be produced once fully vetted ideas and options are determined and able to move forward. This is exactly what is happening now. There are some big ideas in the works, as mentioned on the community call. However, further vetting is necessary to ensure it is possible and meaningful.
I wholeheartedly agree with the premise of this, but also believe it is coming. Weekly updates might be a little aggressive for anything meaningful, but agree should not be out of the realm of reality, even if the update is simply, “making progress”.
Either way, such communication certainly would be well received by the community and onlookers.
How is this idea different from the code development page proposal which had nearly zero support once it was put up for a vote? That voting result doesn’t bode well for any result from this discussion. I am incredulous that such a simple, valuable tool for the DAO is receiving so little public support. It is so essential that it should have been done years ago.
Right now, it is nearly impossible to tell what is being worked on and how much of the aggregate effort of the core contributors is apportioned to the different projects. Is 5%, 50%, or 90% of the current CCs’ availability being absorbed by maintenance? I don’t know. Is 5%, 50% or 90% of the CCs’ availability being used by new projects? I don’t know. How long will the X% be devoted to project Y? What is a reasonable estimate for CC time for proposal Z? I don’t know.
I know that the team must have these numbers already for active projects and some ballpark estimates for possible projects, or they wouldn’t be functionally efficient. They could literally draw it on paper as a grid of projects and effort level, take a picture of it and post it in governance and I would be good with it. This is a ZERO effort task and honestly does not even need to be a DAO vote as it is so trivial.
I’m afraid I have a similar request for a different chart, and that is the current and projected impact of passed and considered proposals. The increase of fees on the LPL pool was a no-brainer, but will result in literally an increase of a few hundred dollars of fees per day on average for the foreseeable future. This is in the 1-2% range of impact on total fees per day across Bancor. (A nice little bump, but it may be one of a only a few of these kind of optimizations that are available.) At any rate, this is the result of one proposal. As other proposals are passed, we need to see how they are stacking up to see what kind of progress we are making and which proposals are making the biggest difference.
Without effort tracking and progress metrics, there is little reason to propose anything because I have no idea if it is doable or merits doing at all. It nukes any responsible decision making in the governance process and reduces the chance of success.
Honestly I hate having to sift through the community call to find these big ideas. I’d much more appreciate a simple update on a road map. Right now you have to go to blog post to Twitter to a dying telegram chat just to get all the information and updates. Its time most people dont have especially those becoming apathetic to the efforts of bancor.
I created a proposal requesting for this very idea awhile back. in terms of voting wallets, it had some support, but not from any meaningfully sized wallet ( aka the contributors don’t want the transparency ) .
you know who is to blame for this ?
every tkn lp that collected their bnt, who then sold off all their bnt and gave away all their voting rights… which is the majority of users… the proposal i gave earlier only had 4-5 wallet votes in favor of this idea.
So if the DAO members … excluding the contributors who are dao members themselves + friends … if the DAO community wants to actually implement something like this idea which will create some sort of accountability from the contributors to the dao members… then you people need to back up your voice and opinions with some voting power. Otherwise… suck it up… also… youre all part to blame for the centralization of the dao voting power because you sold off yours ( not you @BigMike , referring to every tkn lp that sold off their accumulated bnt )