20180404 RChain Active Members Meeting

[kitblake]

ZOOM LINK FOR RAM MEETING
https://zoom.us/j/197490909
2018-April-4, 19:00 UTC (after Greg's Debrief)
Sydney +11, Beijing +8, Greece +3, Amsterdam +2, Lagos +1,
New York -4, Seattle -7

• Prepare RAM meeting agenda

• Any key discussion points anyone wants to address should be added to the agenda and we can
  allocate time accordingly

• Announce meeting in chat channels earlier in the day

• If needed, prepare report for Greg's Debrief

@makys @raob @Ojimadu @kitblake @lapin7 @Tonyprisca13 @BelovedAquila happy for additional agenda items to be added by any of the members.

[Jake-Gillberg]

Probably a good idea to talk about #462, the echo of last month's #251.

[BelovedAquila]

Thank you very much @kitblake, actually happened to make a suggestion on issue #464 , but would bring down here in a summary and I think in a little more general coverage, not as it was limited to translation alone down there.
I was of the opinion, of the use of price tags kind of, on issues. Excuse me. I don't mean the price tags placed by the issue creator,rather by a legitimate source (perhaps some might or should be placed in charge of doing that peculiar job), such that who ever is in charge of doing that, must have estimated beyond reasonable doubts an appropriate price for an issue, and fix it or place it in the issue long head of time before the deadline set for the budget.
Reasons being for:

• The prevention of cheap assumptions.
• Time saving, such that the closing of the budget doesn't have to pend for long because of issues surrounding budgets.
• Creation of an open avenue for questions, comments, adjustments, mutual understanding,deliberations and agreements as it relates to the price tag fix on an issue.
• Creating an effective control measure by means of "A Warning before sanction" technique
• Making it possible for an issue collaborator and issue supervisor to have resolved on time what ever would have been needing resolution on time.and much more
  I actually don't know how much understanding I have been able to create on my points, but if it's not clear, am open to questions and other contributions.

[Jake-Gillberg]

Yeah, #463, #464, #465, #488, and #500 are related. Here is a document of my thoughts on these issues as of April 1st.

[kitblake]

Translation is triggering the most confusion. @Jake-Gillberg, I'm glad you've attempted to stay on top of it. I can't keep up with it.

[dckc]

@BelovedAquila writes:

Making it possible for an issue collaborator and issue supervisor to have resolved on time ...

I'm pretty sure @lapin7 and many others are trying pretty hard to avoid "supervisor" roles, but the current situation is turning away potential developer contributions, as noted in #483:

Well, as a developer looking to contribute to the project, when you go into GitHub bounties, it's a long list of seemingly unvetted requests for services with large price tags. This is a turn-off because it has the feel that no one is minding the store and there's some huge scam going on. I think a lot of people don't want to contribute because they don't want to be associated with potential scam work. And nobody likes the possible mismanagement of funds. It just feels dirty and the whole cryptocurrency space doesn't need any more negatives thrown on it.

Greg has talked about ways to recognize authority. I'll re-iterate the ideas I have come up with to date:

• Issues list maintenance by guides #401 issues list maintenance by guides for each of several labels. For example, @ICA3DaR5, @klysford, @Jake-Gillberg for Translation
  • This involves no changes to the formal bounty-contract; it's more or less happening now.
• Trust metric to recognize authority in bounty program #375 trust metric with trust ratings taken from guild traditions: apprentice, journeyer, and master
  • This would be a bounty-contract change; it's not yet in effect, though we're collecting data and in the Budget V2 tab you can see what the impact would be.

[BelovedAquila]

@dckc there already seem to be some supervisor role going on, so had to just use the word. Maybe we call it a Guide then, not necessarily a supervisor. To prevent ambiguities.

[ghost]

I'll be there too!

[dckc]

@kitblake perhaps that's more relevant to #579 now that this meeting is over?

[ghost]

@dckc bountyhive is for ICO's and it's not an in-house app, which IMO should be preferred.

[kitblake]

@dckc Indeed, I transposed it.

[jimscarver]

This issue is on the task approval overdue list. How do we dispose of it?

[dckc]

To support it: add a budget vote. Otherwise... close it with a label that says it was rejected. Neither invalid not wontfix seems to apply here I have been experimenting with **duplicate** for things like this.

…

On Sun, May 27, 2018, 12:37 PM jimscarver ***@***.***> wrote: This issue is on the task approval overdue list. How do we dispose of it? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#575 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAJNylha-RSyPuP5MJyZA8weBANCvQsgks5t2uRXgaJpZM4TFf-Q> .

[jimscarver]

I did vote for the budget. two more votes will clear the overdue status.