rehrar: in general, what is your suggestion for what should happen when CCS funds run out so that devs and researcher can’t be paid anymore?

isn’t it in the long term interest of the project to find a balance to be innovative while still securing funding for the devs and researchers?

that’s what I don’t get with the "fund everything with no vetting" mindset

we have funded almost every CCS that has every existed so there isn’t even like there is some strict vetting process, but calling the basic vetting we do "gatekeeping" is just disappointing

it’s also not a nice thing to say, most people here are doing this in the free time, reading up on the proposals, thinking about it, etc.

Last chance to join Codenames in 20. Sorry to interrupt

I don't mind doing refunds after thinking about it

selsta: so maybe I can weigh in, since I created the FFS

my original idea was that there would be no restriction on people posting proposals up

and that people like developers and researchers would weigh in on it in the comments

we had the age-weighted / WoT-weighted voting on the forum so that those comments would bubble up and anyone trying to sock-puppet their own proposal would find those comments visible only to themselves and not to others in the community

and then bad proposals simply don't get funded

after some time they could be moved into a graveyard of unsuccessful proposals

if there had already been some donors to the proposal but it was unsuccessful after some long time (eg. 6 months) then it would be handled on a case-by-case basis

eg. put out a call to donors to ask if them to prove their donation (with their txkey) and then they can indicate if they want that donation re-routed to a different proposal, or sent to the GF

in fact, we even started working on automating that, but the code never got pushed as it was way too rough

and we eventually moved away from the FFS to the CCS

btw I totally understand and expect that the CCS has drifted away from "fluffypony's vision", but I'm just putting it out there for consideration

A way to automate proof-of-donation with return address in case proposal fails, sounds like a good thing.

Saw a tweet that Bitrefill supports Monero now on iOS

Was from a random account though, anyone able to verify it?

specifically in our proposal we hacked around the lack of contributers refund path by stating where the money goes when underfunded, but we should probably state that to be also the case if milestones are not completed

Before the problem gets forgotten and pushed away, can we have a definitive conversation about the CCS? Does it make sense to have only "technical" vetting + refund system + a mechanism to reuse funds for other open CCS? Luigi1111 seems to be ok with the system, fluffypony stated his vision for the old FFS, which it's closer to a "lighter" vetting system.

dEBRUYNE seems to be more oriented to keep things as they are (stricter vetting).

Can we have a word from the people involved in this conversation?

I made my proposal to accomodate who wpould prefer less vetting, but without wasting/spreading resources. Do you think that's enough?

what is technical vetting?

For "technical" vetting i mean jwinterm's proposal: "(1) assessing the technical feasibility, (2) assessing the ability of the proposer to deliver technically, and (3) clear milestones and deliverables"

this doesn't completely resolve the "too much noise" problem. Which IMO could be solved by making the structure of the CCS a bit more rigid

what problem is this new system supposed to solve?

^ just examples to clarify what i mean with "more rigid structuere"

I'm trying to find a way to accomodate the various opinions

Examples: proposals can be to fund people for a maximum period of 6 months; No proposals which asks more than N $

My connection dropped, messages might have arrived mixed and late

selsta: Making the CCS more permissive, but without wasting community resources and increase the noise

09:10 <fluffypony> and that people like developers and researchers would weigh in on it in the comments <-- people would still "gatekeep" here, so rehrar's original complaint is not resolved, it might be even worse in this system

The gatekeeping problem (which i personally don't see) wouldn't be a problem, because hte community would be "(1) assessing the technical feasibility, (2) assessing the ability of the proposer to deliver technically, and (3) clear milestones and deliverables". But as i was saying, i think a more rigid structure would be necessary to avoid too much noise and low quality requests

selsta: you can't prevent people from commenting in ANY system

moneromooo could write a diatribe on Facebook about a proposal and it would sway the way people view it

so might as well have them in one place

where you can catch people trying to game it

<rogger> Hey Do you support Monero Meetups in West AFrica?

fluffypony: I'm aware of that lol

rogger: West Africa is a myth, it doesn't really exist

refund would also open the attack vector of people funding their own proposal partly, to make it seem active

and if it still does not get funded they get their funds back

ah yeah - for the original FFS automation we only allowed donors to (automatically) re-route donations to another proposal or to the GF

precisely to avoid that

Right. We could refund only 50% and redirect the remaining 50% to other CCS proposals or a dedicated fund

dEBRUYNE: this? twitter.com/hashinstigator/status/1310151104597032961?s=19

Losing half their donation in any case would probably avoid people self funding their proposal

sgp_: Yes

Don't know about IOS, but i don't see anything in their blog or twitter and no Monero option when buying something, i just tried

so yeah, probably BS

"I instigate crypto market events" lol

So I just caught up on the discussion yesterday, and holy shit it looks total whack from an "outsider"

Really failures all around

1) failure from Core to have sensible policies in place for this CCS. Having meta discussions about what the CCS is every time there's a proposal is a total waste of time

2) community member expectations about what the CCS is. Get a grip. This is Core's thing that Core has not properly set expectations so, yet you/we treat it as the final word in funding despite it being shitty in so many ways

3) a few "why do people even need the CCS" comments to the meta discussion just for fun

This channel is so dysfunctional. You spend hours arguing about meta things and yet the CCS still hasn't been approved or rejected as far as I can see

But hey, "that's just the way things are^TM"

So

Take a step back

sgp_ the purpose of the meeting was debating the proposals and the process, not saying yes or no. It's up to core to do that.

Find out how things will actually work for the CCS

Write them down

Discussing process ambiguities each time is a complete waste

Find out how things will actually work for the CCS -> Which is actually the point of the discussion we were having

yeah

If the CCS is not for proposals >3 months, then make it a firm rule

I do agree, as i stated multiple times now and in past, that a stricter structure is needed. Espcially to avoid these situations

ErCiccione[m]: the "deliverable" of the discussion was unclear

The "deliverable" should be using this discussion to make clear rules

Written down on the CCS website

Yeah, I made a proposal and we were discussing it

Link?

This chat. One hour ago. Starting with my comment "Before the problem gets forgotten...". Which is the continuation of the proposal i already made yesterday

Ah, can this please be on somewhere more permanent link Gitlab?

it's nice to have these confrontational debates, imo. Clear proposals can be worked on now.

The discussion about the CCS isn't the problem

It's that the discussion needed to be had when discussing a specific proposal

So now the CCS proposal writers wasted a ton of time making a proposal and participating here, which could have been avoided if the process was better in the first place

I know this somewhat looks like "armchair hindsight is 20/20" but please make big changes so this doesn't happen again

This discussion already happened multiple times, but if there are no changes implemented by core, i guess it will keep happening

Yeah

this is part of the risk you go with when you submit a proposal on this scale, there is going to be community contention.

And as a community we still use the CCD

*CCS

especially after the results of the last couple of large scale project proposals.

TheCharlatan: Agree. The discussion was sparked by a unusually big and unusually structured proposal, so the discussion was necessary in any case

But yeah, i clear structure would avoid these problems

ErCiccione[m]: since you seem most motivated on this topic, can you make a list of your main requirements/processes? Expectations on as many things as you can think of

Not really motivated. More frustrated

Haha fair, these are frustrating which is why I need to avoid them often :)

And also bored becuase it's raininga lot and i cannot go outside

Honestly I'm glad I wasn't at the meeting yesterday

Well, someone needs to write them down. Can be me but I'm not feeling it today either :)

I don't really want to be the one who takes care of this to be honest, i made my proposals and i don't want to dedicate a lot of time to this, since i really have already a shitload of Monero stuff to take care of in these days. I really hope core will come up with something. Maybe rehrar could take care of writing down something

The most annoying part would be to come out with the structure a CCS should fit in, but i wouldn't write something without an opinion from core (are they ok with a stricter structure? In which terms? etc)

I really hope this won't end up in the "forgotten discussions" folder because of no actions

I think this can be thought of in another way

Think of it as a community wish list for how a crowdfunding platform should work

Then pressure Core to get as close as possible

Selsta are you deliberately mischaracterizing what I say? I didn't say no vetting. Let me repeat. I didn't say no vetting. I just think there is a threshold where vetting turns into gatekeeping. I think that threshold is around what jwinterm said. I will repeat one last time. I DIDN'T (as in did not) say no vetting.

also, I would add one more stipulation, because under than 1, 2, 3 framework proposals like Xeagu's would get in, and that would indeed cause a lot of noise.

The last stipulation I would add is that the proposal should not get a near unanimous 'no' vote from trusted people. If it's like 10 no, 1 yes, then I'd consider that near unanimous. If we go into 2 or 3 yes then it gets more into contentious territory

this is a 'common sense' rule and allows for the community to get rid of stuff that we know and all agree is noise, or bad actors, or stuff that is otherwise technically feasible (like xeagu's building a website for CoM, which he could technically do) and structured properly with correct milestones.

ErCiccione[m] et al I'm afk most of today

but I support the notion in your ping. Have fun.

rehrar: so are you the one deciding what kind of feedback is allowed?

CCS is solely decided by core, community members can voice their opinion but they are not deciding anything, so by definition they can't gatekeep the CCS

or are you the one setting an arbitrary line between "allowed feedback" and "gatekeeping"?

wtf? I'm saying my opinion!

everyone does

so then why are you picking on me because I had an opinion that the way things are going is too gatekeepy?

I haven't decided anything.

I don't have the power to decide anything.

I simply spoke where my arbitrary line was between allowing feedback and gatekeeping. Other spoke where their arbitrary lines were.

I want the best for the project and you were the one who accused me of "stifling innovation" just because I'm sometimes critical at CCS requests

this channel is no fun :/

13:47 <dEBRUYNE> Was from a random account though, anyone able to verify it? - Looked at both the iOS app and the web app and see no monero integration :(

tficharmers: Thanks for checking