01:36:12 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? 01:38:01 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? 01:38:24 that’s what I don’t get with the "fund everything with no vetting" mindset 01:41:14 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 01:42:07 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. 01:42:19 Last chance to join Codenames in 20. Sorry to interrupt 06:26:12 I don't mind doing refunds after thinking about it 07:10:16 selsta: so maybe I can weigh in, since I created the FFS 07:10:32 my original idea was that there would be no restriction on people posting proposals up 07:10:48 and that people like developers and researchers would weigh in on it in the comments 07:12:13 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 07:12:21 and then bad proposals simply don't get funded 07:12:45 after some time they could be moved into a graveyard of unsuccessful proposals 07:13:39 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 07:14:49 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 07:15:10 in fact, we even started working on automating that, but the code never got pushed as it was way too rough 07:15:19 and we eventually moved away from the FFS to the CCS 07:16:14 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 10:35:17 A way to automate proof-of-donation with return address in case proposal fails, sounds like a good thing. 12:47:44 Saw a tweet that Bitrefill supports Monero now on iOS 12:47:46 Was from a random account though, anyone able to verify it? 14:20:06 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 14:54:29 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. 14:55:07 dEBRUYNE seems to be more oriented to keep things as they are (stricter vetting). 14:55:21 Can we have a word from the people involved in this conversation? 14:55:59 I made my proposal to accomodate who wpould prefer less vetting, but without wasting/spreading resources. Do you think that's enough? 14:56:29 what is technical vetting? 14:57:34 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" 14:58:14 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 14:59:29 what problem is this new system supposed to solve? 15:01:04 ^ just examples to clarify what i mean with "more rigid structuere" 15:01:05 I'm trying to find a way to accomodate the various opinions 15:01:09 Examples: proposals can be to fund people for a maximum period of 6 months; No proposals which asks more than N $ 15:01:27 My connection dropped, messages might have arrived mixed and late 15:02:42 selsta: Making the CCS more permissive, but without wasting community resources and increase the noise 15:04:23 09:10 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 15:06:36 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 15:16:01 selsta: you can't prevent people from commenting in ANY system 15:16:22 moneromooo could write a diatribe on Facebook about a proposal and it would sway the way people view it 15:16:29 so might as well have them in one place 15:16:35 where you can catch people trying to game it 15:22:52 Hey Do you support Monero Meetups in West AFrica? 15:24:11 fluffypony: I'm aware of that lol 15:24:28 rogger: West Africa is a myth, it doesn't really exist 15:25:34 refund would also open the attack vector of people funding their own proposal partly, to make it seem active 15:25:46 and if it still does not get funded they get their funds back 15:28:01 ah yeah - for the original FFS automation we only allowed donors to (automatically) re-route donations to another proposal or to the GF 15:28:08 precisely to avoid that 15:29:41 Right. We could refund only 50% and redirect the remaining 50% to other CCS proposals or a dedicated fund 15:35:54 dEBRUYNE: this? https://twitter.com/hashinstigator/status/1310151104597032961?s=19 15:36:04 Losing half their donation in any case would probably avoid people self funding their proposal 15:36:50 sgp_: Yes 15:38:54 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 15:39:02 so yeah, probably BS 15:47:13 "I instigate crypto market events" lol 15:47:50 So I just caught up on the discussion yesterday, and holy shit it looks total whack from an "outsider" 15:48:12 Really failures all around 15:48:55 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 15:50:58 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 15:51:40 3) a few "why do people even need the CCS" comments to the meta discussion just for fun 15:52:28 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 15:53:11 But hey, "that's just the way things are^TM" 15:53:55 So 15:54:05 Take a step back 15:54:18 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. 15:54:21 Find out how things will actually work for the CCS 15:54:26 Write them down 15:54:45 Discussing process ambiguities each time is a complete waste 15:54:56 Find out how things will actually work for the CCS -> Which is actually the point of the discussion we were having 15:55:03 yeah 15:55:09 If the CCS is not for proposals >3 months, then make it a firm rule 15:55:46 I do agree, as i stated multiple times now and in past, that a stricter structure is needed. Espcially to avoid these situations 15:55:54 ErCiccione[m]: the "deliverable" of the discussion was unclear 15:56:16 The "deliverable" should be using this discussion to make clear rules 15:56:29 Written down on the CCS website 15:56:57 Yeah, I made a proposal and we were discussing it 15:57:05 Link? 15:58:28 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 15:58:50 Ah, can this please be on somewhere more permanent link Gitlab? 15:59:08 it's nice to have these confrontational debates, imo. Clear proposals can be worked on now. 15:59:55 The discussion about the CCS isn't the problem 16:00:09 It's that the discussion needed to be had when discussing a specific proposal 16:00:53 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 16:01:37 I know this somewhat looks like "armchair hindsight is 20/20" but please make big changes so this doesn't happen again 16:02:01 This discussion already happened multiple times, but if there are no changes implemented by core, i guess it will keep happening 16:02:13 Yeah 16:02:18 this is part of the risk you go with when you submit a proposal on this scale, there is going to be community contention. 16:02:21 And as a community we still use the CCD 16:02:24 *CCS 16:02:48 especially after the results of the last couple of large scale project proposals. 16:03:19 TheCharlatan: Agree. The discussion was sparked by a unusually big and unusually structured proposal, so the discussion was necessary in any case 16:03:59 But yeah, i clear structure would avoid these problems 16:04:10 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 16:04:56 Not really motivated. More frustrated 16:05:19 Haha fair, these are frustrating which is why I need to avoid them often :) 16:05:20 And also bored becuase it's raininga lot and i cannot go outside 16:05:40 Honestly I'm glad I wasn't at the meeting yesterday 16:07:29 Well, someone needs to write them down. Can be me but I'm not feeling it today either :) 16:08:17 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 16:10:21 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) 16:12:01 I really hope this won't end up in the "forgotten discussions" folder because of no actions 16:12:32 I think this can be thought of in another way 16:12:52 Think of it as a community wish list for how a crowdfunding platform should work 16:13:06 Then pressure Core to get as close as possible 16:49:35 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. 17:03:50 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. 17:04:43 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 17:05:49 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. 17:11:51 ErCiccione[m] et al I'm afk most of today 17:12:12 but I support the notion in your ping. Have fun. 17:33:40 rehrar: so are you the one deciding what kind of feedback is allowed? 17:35:15 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 17:35:38 or are you the one setting an arbitrary line between "allowed feedback" and "gatekeeping"? 17:36:34 wtf? I'm saying my opinion! 17:37:24 everyone does 17:37:51 so then why are you picking on me because I had an opinion that the way things are going is too gatekeepy? 17:37:59 I haven't decided anything. 17:38:06 I don't have the power to decide anything. 17:40:37 I simply spoke where my arbitrary line was between allowing feedback and gatekeeping. Other spoke where their arbitrary lines were. 17:45:16 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 17:45:23 this channel is no fun :/ 18:09:46 13:47 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 :( 19:01:27 tficharmers: Thanks for checking