00:02:40 <sgp_> The current version of getting is too "gatekeeping" since proposals are decided on (in practice) during a meeting that represents only the "old guard" community
00:25:44 <jwinterm> I think that fourth rule addendum kind of makes sense rehrar
00:25:56 <jwinterm> but also kind of puts us back in the same place we are right now maybe
00:32:04 <rehrar> jwinterm: not really. In this particular scenario there was a fair number for and a fair number against. Contentious. Merge.
00:32:21 <rehrar> Name tao trusted individuals who were for Xeagu's proposals.
00:32:24 <rehrar> Two*
00:32:46 <jwinterm> fair enough
00:32:58 <jwinterm> xeagu and xeagu's alt
00:33:03 <rehrar> ^
00:33:14 <rehrar> Sock puppets with no reputation wouldn't count towards contention.
05:24:29 <fluffypony> so the issue we're trying to deal with here is fraud, right
05:24:39 <fluffypony> otherwise we'd just have a free-for-all and not care
05:25:17 <fluffypony> well, when dealing with anti-fraud systems in the payments world (eg. Decision Manager from CyberSource) you build your anti-fraud rules, and then you "replay" them over past transactions to see if they work
05:25:32 <fluffypony> so whatever proposal we settle on we should do that exercise
05:25:54 <fluffypony> replay it over xeagu's proposal, in our minds, and see if it would have had the desired outcome
07:09:57 <ErCiccione[m]> I don't think taking xeagu's proposal as example is a good idea. We should consider what a smarter fraudster would do to play around the rules, Xeagu really "attacked" the system in very dumb and simple ways. But yeah, let's not forget that why i was calling him out multiple times, people on this chat and reddit attacked me multiple times, accusing me of being mean and unnecessarely hard with him. People got
07:09:57 <ErCiccione[m]> convinced of his good faith mostly after the QR code stunt.
07:10:23 <ErCiccione[m]> So let's not say "it was clear to everybody that he was a fraud", because that's not really the case
07:10:49 <ErCiccione[m]> *of his bad faith
07:13:10 <ErCiccione[m]> fluffypony: The main issue is not just fraud as far as i understood, there are concerns about not worthy proposals going in funding required and draining funds from more worthy proposals. IMO that would be solved by redistributing the funds of the failed (unworthy) proposals, to other proposals (worthy)
07:14:03 <fluffypony> that assumes a fixed pool of funding
07:14:13 <fluffypony> and also that people are too stupid to decide where their funds should go
07:14:21 <fluffypony> I find both of those assumptions insulting
07:14:52 <fluffypony> (not personally insulting, insulting to the userbase)
07:17:26 <ErCiccione[m]> You misunderstood. "The pool of funding" as you call it would be the fund created by failed proposals, that would be used to fund other CCS proposals (in my proposal at least). You are not considering that at the moment many fund all the proposals becuse they know they are vetted from us, without caring much about the content, so that must be kept in consideration. And beside that, somebody with good marketing
07:17:26 <ErCiccione[m]> skills would be more advantage than the "worthy" with no marketing skills.
07:18:46 <ErCiccione[m]> I'm basically calling "unworthy" proposals those proposals that will never be completely funded
07:21:13 <ErCiccione[m]> fluffypony: unless i misunderstood what you mean with "fixed pool of funding"
07:25:03 <tficharmers> You are not considering that at the moment many fund all the proposals becuse they know they are vetted from us <-- Genuinely curious how we know this? And what percentage is "many", on average?
07:25:19 <tficharmers> ErCiccione[m] ^
07:25:43 <fluffypony> ok what I mean is: imagine if there are only 10 "high quality" live proposals seeking funding, vs. if there are 100 live proposals (of varying quality) seeking funding
07:26:04 <fluffypony> I'm arguing that 100 live proposals means more activity, and a larger userbase that will make more funds available
07:26:20 <fluffypony> vs. the more tightly controlled proposals where they're artificially limited
07:26:47 <fluffypony> ie. there's not a limited amount of funding available, it expands as there are more proposals
07:30:30 <ErCiccione[m]> tficharmers: This problem was discussed before and multiple times. I cannot give you links because was time ago but i remember at least 2 people stating  on this chat that they regularly donate small amounts to every open CCS. Some reddit comments stated the same and looking at the way funds flaw to proposals (at least my past ones) seems to confirm.
07:33:41 <tficharmers> Ok thanks. I'd have to say that we can't extrapolate "many" from this then. It might just be a small percentage of donators that behave this way. You can count me as one that reviews and donates selectively.
07:34:05 <fluffypony> yeah my anecdotal evidence is that people evaluate proposals on their merit
07:34:15 <fluffypony> and don't donate just because they're "approved"
07:34:18 <ErCiccione[m]> fluffypony: Understood now. You are definitely more optimist than me about the amount of people are willing to donate to the CCS. True that lately there seems to be slightly less activity from the whales who usually fill CCS proposals, but i don't think we are there just yet. beside, i probably used "unworthy" poorly, i didn't mean not really interesting proposal, but somehow useful. I mean Xeagu-style
07:34:18 <ErCiccione[m]> proposals, but smarter. That are doomed to fail (so i really don't see how you can say that people are too stupid to decide, i'm literally saying the opposite)
07:34:24 <fluffypony> many people I've spoken to don't even know that there's a process
07:37:42 <ErCiccione[m]> s/how you can say that people/how you can think i mean to say that people
07:37:42 <monerobux> ErCiccione[m] meant to say: proposals, but smarter. That are doomed to fail (so i really don't see how you can think i mean to say that people are too stupid to decide, i'm literally saying the opposite)
07:38:20 <ErCiccione[m]> anyway, i might have overstated the amount of people donating to everything because there is a vetting
07:39:40 <ErCiccione[m]> (taking put my personal bservations, since i cannot back them up with numers) but i thought that was a common thought, otherwise i wouldn't know why many are against lighter vetting.
07:40:37 <ErCiccione[m]> If it's true that most of the people don't care about the vetting, then proposing a lighter one with an improved structure makes even more sense (which is my proposal)
07:45:40 <ErCiccione[m]> for "less activities from the whales" i meant to say that i see more smaller amounts being donated than before, when basically the whales were funding most of the proposals.
07:45:45 <ErCiccione[m]> Damn i need a tea
07:47:43 <ErCiccione[m]> s/taking put my personal bservations/taking back my personal observations
07:47:43 <monerobux> ErCiccione[m] meant to say: (taking back my personal observations, since i cannot back them up with numers) but i thought that was a common thought, otherwise i wouldn't know why many are against lighter vetting.
07:47:46 <ErCiccione[m]> i do need a tea
07:48:16 <ErCiccione[m]> sorry guys for the mumbling this morning, i know must have made reading my answers hard and frustrating
07:49:09 <ErCiccione[m]> i hope i at least managed to make clear that i wasn't making insulting claims toward the community, but quite the opposite fluffypony
07:49:18 <fluffypony> yes you did
07:49:27 <fluffypony> tks for clarifying
07:52:41 <Lovera[m]> <tficharmers "Ok thanks. I'd have to say that "> I have donated to different proposals such as locha mesh and I always check their content and "review" it myself,  I don't know the rest, I speak for me.
07:54:26 <ErCiccione[m]> Ok, good :)
07:55:45 <ErCiccione[m]> To be clear i do expect the active or at least "closer" community members to review and fund the proposals they like, i just thought that wasn't the case for the communtiy at large, which don't follow day-to-day development and that was the reason why we had a "stricter" vetting
08:05:40 <Lovera[m]> <ErCiccione[m] "To be clear i do expect the acti"> to be honest I don't consider "stricter" vetting.
08:09:31 <ErCiccione[m]> Yeah that's why i put "stricter" in quote. We didn't really refuse many proposals.
08:11:48 <ErCiccione[m]> If we do adopt my proposal, i think that system would accomodate everybody: lighter "technical" vetting, stricter rules for opening new CCS, plan to recycle funds of failed proposals, possibility of give partial refunds.
08:12:09 <ErCiccione[m]> luigi likes it, fluffypony what's your opinion?
08:12:36 <fluffypony> can you link me to the write-up?
08:14:18 <ErCiccione[m]> It's not really a write up, let me grab one of my comments, but yes, i got it, i will make a write up :P
08:17:50 <ErCiccione[m]> fluffypony:  When vetting, the community would be "(1) assessing the technical feasibility, (2) assessing the ability of the proposer to deliver technically, and (3) clear milestones and deliverables" + Funds of failed CCS would be used to fund other CCS proposals + Donors would have the possibility to receive partial refunds (partial to avoid people funding their own proposals to mimic activity) + Stricter
08:17:50 <ErCiccione[m]> rules for CCS proposals: Maximum amount of money asked? Max duration of a CCS? Max time active before expiring? <- rules to be defined
08:20:26 <ErCiccione[m]> So, vetters wouldn't have to answer questions like: "Is this useful for the community?". because donors only will make their decision. Noise by "doomed" proposals (what i called "unworthy" before) would be reduced by having stricter rules and a mechanism to redistribute donation from failed proposals
08:42:54 <Lovera[m]> Stricter rules for CCS proposals sound like "Wanting to control the money people want to donate" for example, I have read the whole meeting on Saturday, why is a problem funding a 7 Months proposal  if it is well structured.??? (Im about Atomic Swaps )
08:53:09 <Lovera[m]> Right now there is nothing written where proposals must have a X-month limit, or Y $ limit (AFAIK) ... So i cant see the problem with Atomic Swaps.
08:53:09 <Lovera[m]> From other side, i think that a rules like fixed amount of $$$, or duration of a ccs  Could be not god to some future proposals which need more time and money... (IMO)
08:53:30 <ErCiccione[m]> why is a problem funding a 7 Months proposal -> Please read again and also the conversations after. This has been repeated multiple times
08:54:10 <ErCiccione[m]> How is a system with less vetting "wanting to control the money people want to donate"?
08:54:28 <ErCiccione[m]> structures are needed to avoid repeating these discussions again and again, this was also stated multiple times
08:56:09 <ErCiccione[m]> Anyway, i really don't know how i became the flag man of this situation, i was merely trying to find a solution between the different opinions, i definitely don't want to start debating on this again. I made my proposal according to the feedback of people, i won't repeat what's been already discussed, sorry.
09:02:48 <Lovera[m]> Im already read all the conversation, and for me is ok if there are Milestone and sub milestones, and if the Comunity are not agree, so we can't just unlock the XMR, there also a timeline (31-12-2020) to be funded....
09:02:49 <Lovera[m]> Just saying now my opinion. Sorry if it an inconvenience.
09:02:49 <Lovera[m]> You don't need to repeat.
09:03:46 <Lovera[m]> I agree with you, there should be rules to avoid this conversation every time
09:56:50 <zkao> since this discussion is still on going, and as a professional lab rat, i feel this system is far too tough on researchers, im thinking of sarang and surae, i'd like to express the view of Richard Feynman on this: “peace of mind is the most important prerequisite for creative work.” And he thought one should do everything one could to achieve that. And he thought that meant, among other things, that one should alwa
09:56:50 <zkao> stay away from anything worldly, like management.
10:04:13 <sarang> Too tough on researchers via gatekeeping?
10:06:18 <Inge-> It would be nice if researchers could transition to a grant-like system where they are secured funding for a year or three
10:07:11 <sarang> That reduces accountability
10:08:03 <sarang> If funding can't go away over a long period, donors can't signal their assessment of the results as easily
10:08:50 <sarang> I have found short term funding to be a huge source of stress and potential instability, but it's better for accountability to the community
10:11:34 <ErCiccione[m]> I have found short term funding to be a huge source of stress and potential instability, but it's better for accountability to the community -> i 100% agree with this
10:13:19 <ErCiccione[m]> Knowning that i have a salary assured for only 3 months is indeed a huge source of stress. And was much worst in past, when my proposals for coordinating the localization workgroup often struggled to get funded
10:16:36 <zkao> no, too tough in terms of management and expectations of the community. you have to work out on hard scientific problems, attend conferences, at the same time u have to do PR: you have to please the community on irc and reddit and podcasts, u have very short term funding, and continuously be reporting and reapplying, and keep an eye on resources available if that funding goes away. i understand its better for
10:16:36 <zkao> accounting, but thats not compatible with the nature of scientic work. how could someone not burn out?
10:19:19 <ErCiccione[m]> I don't see an alternative beside a longer funding period.
10:23:11 <asy> .choice move to funding required|don't
10:23:11 <monerobux> asy: Your options: move to funding required, don't. My choice: move to funding required
10:23:49 <wowario[m]> problem solved
10:29:38 * sarang is certainly burned out
11:11:41 <dEBRUYNE> Arguably, both sarang and suraeNoether have enough 'credit' to warrant longer funding proposals
11:11:46 <dEBRUYNE> Which should further alleviate some stress
11:20:40 <sarang> Perhaps clearer communication on the platform of the nature of the vetting process would help ensure all potential donors know the process, risks, and benefits
11:26:10 <dEBRUYNE> zkao: I don't deem the community as that demanding, but my perception could be wrong
11:31:41 <hyc> usually the community is over-enthusiastic
11:37:11 <zkao> if the community is not very demanding, who is imposing all the management + PR overhead on the researchers?
11:43:04 <dEBRUYNE> Can you elaborate? In case of sarang, for instance, a monthly report is written which is basically a summary of the work he did that month
11:43:15 <dEBRUYNE> I don't see that as particularly demanding and it provides a good overview for donors and the community
11:43:25 <ErCiccione[m]> zkao[m]: I think you are overstimating the amount of "management" needed. CCS funded people state in the proposal their own way to keep the community updated about their work
11:43:53 <ErCiccione[m]> "please the community on irc and reddit and podcasts" as you mentioned in your earlier post is not required
11:46:58 <ErCiccione[m]> So, to answer your question: nobody is imposing anything. Researches as other CCS-funded community members declare their own way to keep the community updated and they are required to stick to that
11:58:20 <midipoet> i thought the general idea was for the CCS to work as a free market for "good ideas". is this not the case?
11:58:44 <dEBRUYNE> Kind of, but I do think some vetting is required
11:58:49 <midipoet> (obviously with the spam protection that the "gatekeeping" constitutes
11:58:54 <dEBRUYNE> I don't deem the current process as particularly stringent, but others may disagree
11:59:13 <midipoet> to be honest - i get put off with all the writing that is required to even consider a proposal
11:59:23 <midipoet> don't know how some people do it every three months
11:59:39 <midipoet> however, i suppose its not for my daily wage - with might change my impetus
12:24:27 <zkao> like 2 years ago h4sh3d came here with his old draft to ask if he could raise funds to support his research work on atomic swap and u guys scared him away in no time, not sure how. this type of proposals are not rejected, they were not even written. suraeNoether shared something similar on the weekend: to prevent all the overhead of discussing proposals, he simply did not write one, or something similar. now midipoet
12:24:27 <zkao> is reporting something similar.
12:26:53 <zkao> i think for nerdy, non-communicative people, like many of us are, its much easier to do consulting or write a trading bot to get some income, and then do research, than to deal with a very few loud unwelcoming members of the community
12:29:03 <midipoet> zkao: can you write me a trading bot? thanks please
12:29:30 <asy> my latest automated trading strategy can lose money in record time!
12:29:32 <midipoet> to be fair, i don't think there are loud unwelcoming members here. i think that is a bit harsh
12:29:55 <midipoet> asy: just do != on all the rules
12:29:58 <midipoet> win win
12:40:34 <zkao> if u come with contributions only, its fine, if you talk about funding, things change
12:41:03 <zkao> it feels like a starving community, with a billionaire market cap
12:44:18 <ErCiccione[m]> I think you are being very harsh and unfair. I don't have memory of people being unwelcoming about CCS and if even writing/discussin a proposal is a overhead, yeah, the system is probably not for you.
12:44:45 <ErCiccione[m]> it feels like a starving community, with a billionaire market cap <- You are aware that a billion market cap doesn't mean the contributors of the project are millionairs, right?
12:45:28 <midipoet> we are all millionaires in spirit and soul
12:45:52 <ErCiccione[m]> if u come with contributions only, its fine, if you talk about funding, things change <- well, yes, of course. Is that weird to you zkao? This is an open source community, funding is an extra
12:47:05 <ErCiccione[m]> I believe the harsh comment you are writing are biased by the situation of your own proposal. The CCS has multiple problems, but saying that we scare people away because of that it's nonsense IMO
12:51:28 <ErCiccione[m]> We scare away people, but at the same time the vast majority of the proposals are funded. Hard to believe. Sure some people might be scared away by the fact that they cannot simply ask for money and start to work, but i wouldn't say that's a problem of the system
12:52:32 <ErCiccione[m]> Anyway, i think i wrote more than enough about this. If somebody have suggestions to improve the CCS, they are welcome to share them as i did, at the end is core's duty to take a decision
12:54:41 <ErCiccione[m]> Lol i don't even know why i'm so passioned about this, i always thought the CCS is a quite good system, but heavily penalized by the absence of a clear structure.
13:00:28 <zkao> We scare away people, but at the same time the vast majority of the proposals are funded. Hard to believe. <- are you accounting here for all the proposals that were never written because people were discouraged to do so? are they also funded?
13:01:10 <zkao> i referred only research in my conversation, our current proposal is not research, thats why im feeling confortable to talk about that. and trying to contribute to the discussion, but im done now
13:01:47 <ErCiccione[m]> I can only speak for the proposals that were actually opened. Neither me or you can talk about proposals that were never opened, we can just assume.
13:08:04 <ErCiccione[m]> zkao[m]: I didn't mean to stop you from contribute the discussion tho, just wanted to say that i made my proposal to improve the current system, which actually keep in consideration problems that i personally don't see. So i don't really have more to add. I just found your harsh comments unfair
13:37:25 <nioc> The reason that proposals are limited to 3 months is primarily due to price fluctuation.  There were 2 long term funded projects where the price spiked several months after they started and people kept asking the question, why is he being paid so much.  So the 3 month time limit was used moving forward.  BUT price fluctuation can and does happen quickly and because of this reason sarang set up a system that was
13:37:25 <nioc> agreed to by core and the community (after discussion :) such that he was paid just the amount requested and the community also paid just what was requested.
13:40:41 <nioc> The proposers are willing to accept the fluctuation.  Is the community also willing to accept this?
13:45:45 <nioc> I believe a reason for the questioning is that this is by far the largest proposal in terms of money.
13:48:08 <nioc> The amount of effort that went into such a lengthy and detailed proposal is impressive.
13:50:06 <nioc> I do not have the technical ability to judge it and rely on technical vetting of others to judge proposals such as this.  I am sure I am not alone in this.
13:58:04 <TheCharlatan> Isthmus did some research on the volatility:  https://github.com/Mitchellpkt/volatility_analysis/blob/master/volatility_analysis.ipynb
13:58:32 <TheCharlatan> He also commented on his findings here: https://twitter.com/Mitchellpkt0/status/1252720219644063745
14:09:20 <TheCharlatan> to me it just shows that putting a cap on the amount because of possible bad optics on the future, is silly. In all likelihood it could have gone the other way as well.
14:10:16 <TheCharlatan> Putting a cap on the amount and scope of single requests _in the interest of the requester_ is the better argument, since that seems to be historically accurate.
15:01:49 <dEBRUYNE> are you accounting here for all the proposals that were never written because people were discouraged to do so? are they also funded? <= People were never discouraged by the community. In fact, I've seen multiple explicit encouragements
15:02:06 <dEBRUYNE> I wouldn't say the possibility of a proposal receiving extended scrutiny qualifies as discouragement
15:02:13 <dEBRUYNE> As proposer, it should fall within the realm of possibilities
15:03:43 <dEBRUYNE> Put differently, people shouldn't expect a blank slate
15:03:57 <dEBRUYNE> Plenty of projects used such a policy and the results were typically horrendous
15:04:20 <dEBRUYNE> DASH is a prime example were funding was plenty, yet there were a lot of subpar proposals that were funded
15:29:51 <sgp_> idk, it's important to not go so far in that direction that we forget to improve the process
15:30:24 <sgp_> we have no idea who could have submitted a CCS but walked away for whatever reason
15:34:05 <hyc> if a little thing like writing a proposal is enough to stop them, how likely is it they would complete their project?
15:34:36 <sgp_> I don't like looking at it that way hyc
15:34:43 <hyc> better not to wonder about people who walked away, you'll never know anyway
15:34:47 <sgp_> people have proposals for a variety of things
15:35:40 <sgp_> I'm not getting deeply stressed by it, but we need to remember that simplifying the process will only help everyone imo
15:36:03 <sgp_> if it's a bad proposal we can always reject it
15:36:07 <hyc> the process itself is pretty simple.
15:36:15 <hyc> write a tet file, submit as a PR.
15:36:18 <hyc> text
15:36:31 <sgp_> the expectations are mostly undocumented and unclear
15:36:48 <hyc> the hard part is convincing reviewers that the proposal has merit. that's as it should e.
15:36:50 <hyc> be
15:37:18 <sgp_> well, I don't think the atomic swap proposal was rejected because of lack of merit
15:37:39 <hyc> has it been conclusively rejected?
15:38:01 <hyc> seems to me that it's just some details of duration being disagreed on
15:38:06 <sgp_> as far as I can tell it won't be merged as-is
15:38:35 <sgp_> but the main point is that there's a blocker related to time that wasn't clear before the proposal was made
16:57:00 <nioc> I don't see it as having been rejected
17:01:47 <gingeropolous> a high effort wall is an effective way to filter out subpar stuff
17:03:22 * lh1008[m] sent a long message:  < https://matrix.org/_matrix/media/r0/download/matrix.org/fDlwxNBqqnGMTdeQPrzieaSf/message.txt >
17:03:26 <gingeropolous> regarding writing a proposal being a barrier for some applicants... thats.... not a good sign
17:06:25 <lh1008[m]> <hyc "if a little thing like writing a"> What hyc says here is true. If by sitting myself and making a proposal is that hard, how would I deliver if I consider making a report is hard enough to get money.
17:09:34 <nioc> this atomic swap proposal is the most impressive one that I've seen
17:09:46 <nioc> considering the cost it should be
17:10:00 <nioc> of all the things to consider with this proposal the timeline is IMHO at the bottom of the list
17:10:24 <lh1008[m]> I personally struggle a lot with translations. Contributors are amazingly good to make work as they wish but hard to follow instructions, for example as simple as opening a Taiga account, or just reading through a tutorial to learn how to push and make PR to the repository.
17:10:49 <lh1008[m]> <nioc "of all the things to consider wi"> This could be spoken through. We at Monero Outreach have been funded without an exact timeline.
17:11:32 <nioc> well the timeline is 7 months which is longer than the general rule of 3 months max
17:12:45 <lh1008[m]> We do have a deadline, but we found out it was unsustainable to work with a strict deadline. We won't even have time to think on how to write articles or show up content. So we have been delivering through time, but that is expensive.
17:13:32 <lh1008[m]> <nioc "well the timeline is 7 months wh"> I'll read the proposal. Will give out my comments too :).
17:15:50 <lh1008[m]> <gingeropolous "regarding writing a proposal bei"> Yes
17:17:13 <gingeropolous> whats the proposal thats caused all this ruckus?
17:17:48 <lh1008[m]> atomic swap I guess is the one
17:18:40 <gingeropolous> dis? https://repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/ccs-proposals/-/blob/master/h4sh3d-atomic-swap-research.md
17:20:16 <gingeropolous> oh no this one prolly: https://repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/ccs-proposals/-/merge_requests/168
17:21:27 <nioc> the reasons that 3 months was chosen are price fluctuations which in this case does not seem to be an issue and the other reason is will the work get completed cause "things happen"  and then be left with the funds not doing the intended work.
17:21:38 <nioc> I don't think in this situation 3 vs 7 months really mitigates the concern although again it is a large amount of $
17:21:51 <nioc> first discuss the merits of the proposal and then that will give a better perspective if the proposal should be approved as is
17:21:54 <nioc> everything is supposed to be decided on a case by case basis within the guidlines
17:22:26 <nioc> I feel that everytime I write, somewhere a grammar dies
17:22:58 <nioc> gingeropolous: yes 168
17:26:53 <ErCiccione[m]> nioc: the reasons that 3 months was chosen are price fluctuations <- It wasn't the only reason. It's also to give the community the possibility to decide if they want to keep funding the project after seeing the results and to avoid that some event would cause the CCS work to stop.
17:28:33 <nioc> yes I included "to avoid that some event would cause the CCS work to stop."
17:29:12 <nioc> things happen
17:32:04 <nioc> it just seems that more discussion should have been about the merits of the proposal itself
17:32:07 <nioc> that may have guided the other aspects that we are currently discussing
17:32:12 <nioc> at least for me
17:43:53 <rehrar> zkao: "if the community is not very demanding, who is imposing all the management + PR overhead on the researchers?" they do it to themselves, and for good reason. Oftentimes, we who get paid out of some sort of community fund have to play managers to ourselves. There is nobody making sure we're not pissing the day away. We want to keep ourselves morally honest, and so we set strict goals for ourselves
17:44:38 <rehrar> we do our own performance reviews (and are probably oftentimes harsher than a regular manager might be to compensate for our inherent bias towards ourselves). We do our own evaluations (same thing). This gets tiring. Being not just the employee, but the manager.
17:45:00 <rehrar> But some of us deem it necessary to keep our integrity and not take advantage of a trusting community that doesn't have the tools to make sure we're actually working on what we say we are.
17:46:04 <rehrar> zkao: "like 2 years ago h4sh3d came here with his old draft to ask if he could raise funds to support his research work on atomic swap and u guys scared him away in no time" Thanks. More evidence on missed opportunities that are not revealed by the 'just look at current rejected proposals'.
17:49:19 <rehrar> also, I agree with hyc here in regards to not being able to make the actual physical proposal. I made screenshots, and very detailed step-by-step instructions literally circling the right buttons to click (in red).
17:49:49 <rehrar> the gauntlet here can be tough, for sure. But making the proposal is not, and I'm continually flabbergasted and people still get it wrong. :P
18:13:06 <zkao> rehar: search on your logs, a msg from surae, namely: "I can just say that at least oncein the past year, I *chose* not to make a CCS funding request specifically to avoid this conversation"
18:13:49 <zkao> rehrar, and one msg from midipoet: to be honest - i get put off with all the writing that is required to even consider a proposal, don't know how some people do it every three months
18:19:10 <rehrar> zkao: wait, why are you telling this to me. I'm on your side here. I agree with you.
18:20:08 <rehrar> I'm saying this is providing more evidence for the argument that the effects of strict gatekeeping can't just be seen by "look at current rejected proposals, there aren't many, so the system works" as was presented the past couple of days.
18:20:35 <rehrar> There are missed opportunities that are not present there. And we have several people providing evidence for it so it's not "trust me, the missed opportunity is there".
18:55:02 <zkao> rehrar: misread your message, thought u were asking for more evidence, sorry
19:00:28 <hyc> Point still stands. If a little thing like writing a proposal is going to stand in your way, what are you going to do when an actual hard problem turns up in  your work?
19:01:00 <hyc> We developed and threw away 2 different prototypes for RandomX before arriving at a design that couldn't be cheated or optimized.
19:01:05 <hyc> You think that was easy?
19:03:03 <hyc> * at least 2. Multiple iterations on every phase of code generation, code execution, integrity checks...
19:03:24 <zkao> hyc: read the quote from surae above, "I chose not to make a CCS funding request"
19:03:35 <zkao> that doesnt mean that he cant write a proposal
19:03:52 <zkao> he chose not to write a proposal, to avoid the discussion
19:04:23 <zkao> I find it such a waste to scare off talent, and then simply say they're incapable to write a proposal (although they can write peer-reviewed articles), they might just not have the personality to be able to deal with the process on their own. more often than not, brilliant scientists, are not great managers, and this is  to a great extend a  tech project
19:05:51 <hyc> I think surae's quote is being used without sufficient context. Did he do the work anyway, and just choose not to ask the CCS for funds? Or did he abandon the work?
19:14:55 <dEBRUYNE> I think this was a proposal meant for a grad student, not for himself
19:15:44 <hyc> Knowing surae, it's uncharacteristic for *anything* to scare him off...
19:17:04 <gingeropolous> i mean someone can take on the role of grants assistance
19:18:06 <luigi1111w> this is mostly outside the scope of CCS design/admin in my opinion. If someone wants to "be a manager" for unrepresented talent, then by all means
19:18:30 <gingeropolous> if the current ccs is difficult to write proposals. this is a common tactic in research orgs. there are "grant specialists" because scientist will undoubtedly screw up bureaucratic stuff
19:18:48 <luigi1111w> it isn't difficult to write proposals
19:19:05 <Inge-> well if you can take the feedback, bad proposals get very clear input on what is needed to improve
19:19:06 <luigi1111w> at least I don't think so
19:19:19 <Inge-> ..what needs to be improved*
19:20:17 <gingeropolous> i guess i dunno what this conversation is about then....
19:21:52 <rehrar> gingeropolous: this is exactly what simplifying the process would do. Remove the ambiguity here. Because right now, proposals need to be technically feasible, have good milestones, and have a competent person at the helm, and they STILL might not make it in if the gauntlet doesn't like a few things. There are MORE unspoken rules by being too gatekeepy rather than less
19:22:28 <rehrar> so we remove unspoken rules by having the four-piece framework. 1. Technically feasible. 2. Good milestones. 3. Competent person/team. 4. Not a near-unanimous no from people with reputation.
19:22:46 <nioc> well the current proposal was very detailed to begin with and was updated to take into account constructive feedback
19:22:56 <rehrar> nioc: ^=
19:22:57 * gingeropolous right now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wu598ENenk
19:22:58 <monerobux> [ The Big Lebowski - He Peed On My Rug Scene (2/12) | Movieclips - YouTube ] - www.youtube.com
19:23:20 <rehrar> there is no reason it shouldn't be merged imo
19:23:29 * rehrar puts on obama-hat
19:23:31 <rehrar> let me be very clear
19:23:51 <rehrar> I support the merging of this atomic swaps proposal
19:23:56 <luigi1111w> a proposal also needs some thumbs ups from people with reputation
19:24:14 <rehrar> luigi1111w: hence number 4 of my four-piece framework
19:24:27 <dEBRUYNE> The 'criticisms' I voiced aren't necessarily a show-stopper in my opinion by the way
19:24:33 <luigi1111w> well not no is not the same as yes
19:25:24 * lederstrumpf sent a long message:  < https://matrix.org/_matrix/media/r0/download/matrix.org/gtKYVIEHYYKMMYwWDioQmZpX/message.txt >
19:25:40 <gingeropolous> silly matrix
19:25:46 * lederstrumpf sent a long message:  < https://matrix.org/_matrix/media/r0/download/matrix.org/YEbyviLhLIlIRXGQqYtQtLkG/message.txt >
19:26:43 <rehrar> luigi1111w: not no tells me at the very least indifference :P
19:26:47 <luigi1111w> "basic exploratory research" has no clear value proposition
19:26:54 <luigi1111w> right. I require more than indifference.
19:27:28 <gingeropolous> personally i'd like the proposal to have some kind of integration as an endpoint. for instance, working with some dex to this work is actually usable by ppl
19:27:33 <lederstrumpf> hyc: "Knowing surae, it's uncharacteristic for *anything* to scare him off..." <---   and then if he nonetheless speaks up about it, should that not add even more weight to his position on hits?
19:27:47 <luigi1111w> I would merge something with 5 yes and 5 no (assuming near-equal "reputation weights"), but not something with 1 no and no yes
19:27:48 <gingeropolous> instead of being a $280k toolset that sits their waiting for someone to build a monero/corn dex
19:28:03 <gingeropolous> sorry. im out of my element again. we're talking about process i guess. woops
19:28:10 <rehrar> 4. Mostly anything that's not a near-unanimous no with some clear, enthusiastic support from people with reputation.
19:28:25 <luigi1111w> doesn't need to be enthusiastic either
19:28:27 <luigi1111w> just something
19:28:37 <rehrar> 4. Mostly anything that's not a near-unanimous no with some clear support from people with reputation.
19:29:28 <rehrar> luigi1111w: "I would merge something with 5 yes and 5 no (assuming near-equal "reputation weights"), but not something with 1 no and no yes" then the atomic swaps should be merged. We definitely have a split with several for and several against
19:29:41 <rehrar> and many of the 'againsts' such as dEBRUYNE have noted that their qualms are not deal-breakers
19:29:44 <luigi1111w> ok "would merge" is too simple
19:30:01 <luigi1111w> but the whole thing with this proposal is the amount and size
19:30:08 <nioc> gingeropolous: it's ok, we should talk about more than process
19:30:17 <rehrar> which the proposers say they are not willing to compromise on.
19:30:18 <lh1008[m]> <zkao[m] "I find it such a waste to scare "> Anyway the community is here to help. We all are here to help. If anyone feels a little shy maybe ask someone in private and see if they can get assistance. I understand what you're saying, I was also shy at first, I'm still shy. I did my second proposal almost 2 years from my first, and for a not so big amount of XMR. So I feel shy too. The discussion is always heavy,
19:30:18 <lh1008[m]> will alway be, we're talking about money. Asking for money is not easy.
19:30:37 <rehrar> So really, we either need to merge it now, or close it now so they can move on with their lives. No new arguments are going to be made, and we'll be going around in circles every time.
19:31:37 <luigi1111w> the only topic worth exploring for me regarding this one is funding feasibility and any potential changes around refunds/etc
19:32:20 <luigi1111w> the CCS is not a repo of unlimited money
19:32:53 <rehrar> correct, but it is a repo of an unknown amount of money
19:33:30 <rehrar> luigi1111w: if I put together a refunds framework (that works and is good), would this be solved for you?
19:33:41 <luigi1111w> maybe the donors have discovered an inflation bug
19:33:59 <nioc> ^_^
19:34:11 <rehrar> that's what's kept me afloat all these years
19:34:34 <nioc> luigi1111w: rehrar please pump and the funding issues will go away
19:34:37 <luigi1111w> the main framework required is what options are available
19:34:49 <rehrar> luigi1111w: Google Sheets
19:34:49 <rehrar> ezpz
19:34:54 <luigi1111w> no not that
19:35:03 <luigi1111w> I can take care of that stuff
19:35:13 <luigi1111w> I mean options for donors need to be clear up front
19:36:36 <dEBRUYNE> I think their proposal stated that refunds could go to the MRL 'fund' right?
19:37:27 <rehrar> 1. Claim your transaction as your own within 48 hours of donation and give an address to be refunded in case of failed proposal. 2. Don't claim your transaction within 48 hours of the donation and money will go to GF if proposal fails. 3. Same as 2 except money goes to a brand new CCS-only fund.
19:37:28 <zkao> yes,
19:37:47 <rehrar> dEBRUYNE: it does, but this is actually kind of not their choice.
19:38:00 <rehrar> It's like if I put in one of my proposals "in case of failed proposal, funds go to me, Diego"
19:38:01 <luigi1111w> CCS has parent authority here
19:38:30 <rehrar> the CCS already has an outlined way to handle 'failed' funds. Writing something in the proposal doesn't override that unless there is express permission by the CCS operators.
19:38:50 <rehrar> they can say that they can lobby with core to get the funds transferred there, but they can't promise anything more than that
19:41:03 <luigi1111w> 1. 100% MRL fund; 2. 50/50 refund/MRL fund
19:41:26 <luigi1111w> then the default doesn't require any donor action
19:43:07 <sarang> What determines which proposals are part of "the MRL fund"?
19:43:08 <rehrar> luigi1111w: the reason I set a time limit is so that people don't come in months after and want to claim their refund when it's already been given to the MRL Fund
19:43:46 <luigi1111w> sarang ostensibly the proposal choosing that option
19:43:57 <rehrar> sarang: your question is valid, but also the reason why codifying this stuff is the worst
19:43:58 <luigi1111w> rehrar sure I didn't include a time limit
19:44:06 <luigi1111w> but I meant to inherit yours
19:44:09 <rehrar> gotcha
19:50:01 <h4sh3d[m]> rehrar That part of the proposal about “refund” can be rewritten as soon as it gets clear. We didn’t wrote this to override the CCS rules, sorry it it was clumsy
19:50:37 <rehrar> h4sh3d[m]: no worries, dude. :)
19:50:46 <rehrar> And hang in there.
20:00:12 <sarang> For this proposal, I think it's important to specify the MRL part of the contingency plan very clearly
20:00:28 <sarang> i.e. can any future proposal say it wishes to receive funds from this?
20:00:32 <sarang> etc.
20:00:42 <xmrmatterbridge> <xmrhaelan> Merge the atomic swaps proposal. It was well thought out and has credibility. Let donors decide if it is worthy.
20:46:05 <luigi1111w> sarang it would end up our discretion if there is any controversy about whether something is a fit. You would have very significant input I'm sure.
20:48:53 <midipoet> i don't see how this atomic swap stuff could ever be seen as out of scope for MRL (but maybe I am missing some context of the conversation)
20:49:26 <luigi1111w> this is about what happens to the funds if enough isn't raised for this proposal to succeed
20:52:13 <midipoet> ah, I see. i thought it was General Dev Fund or whatever that's called these days, but I guess there have been some rightful rumblings with regards to how that money is spent.
20:52:32 <midipoet> money huh. brings out the goblins
20:53:56 <midipoet> i really like that atomic swap stuff, btw. I loved the talk at C3. fingers crossed for it
20:54:43 <luigi1111w> proceed, not succeed
20:54:45 <luigi1111w> anyway
20:55:08 <luigi1111w> if people are comfortable with the terms above we can have them be added and then proceed with the request
21:30:39 <rehrar> luigi1111w: and we just have people contact your with proofs?
21:31:02 <rehrar> The refund process kind of needs to be understood before the donations too.
21:32:24 <luigi1111w> either do nothing, or contact me within 48 hrs with tx proof and refund address to get 50% refunded in case proposal fails to get sufficient funding
21:33:05 <luigi1111w> txid and amount should be enough I think; shouldn't need to mess with spend proofs
21:33:36 <luigi1111w> contact via email luigi1111w⊙gc or irc user luigi1111w/luigi1111, can use gpg if desired.
21:40:08 <nioc> gmail O_o
21:41:49 <nioc> obv will need to make to make the refund info PROMINENT
22:01:09 <sgp_> one problem with the rando discussion here is that the largest critic of moving it, ErCiccione[m], seems to not be present to give their argument on why they feel it should not be moved
22:02:34 <sgp_> I'm kinda flabbergasted we are even talking about the ease of making a proposal tbh. The steps being difficult don't seem to be the issue in this specific case. They seem related to the time and other rando things like refunds afaict. That's on us/Core
22:06:23 <sgp_> actually write down the "refund policy" on the CCS site directly