One of the main items outlined in this proposal as direct PIVX-Core repository work is held up because no reviews and there are superseding pull requests which I have told you about and they are still unreviewed.
Archived CoreDev-Liquid-May-July
- Thread starter Liquid369
- Start date
Eric_Stanek
Well-known Pivian
@Alessandro Rezzi The update on your proposal which just completed includes 4 PRs. (A 5th was reported last cycle, but had the bulk of effort done the cycle prior. So, I didn't include it.) So, that's $1,000 USD each. Is that a fair statement to summarize your effort for the month? Can we agree that is the best metric and it always accurately represents a developers effort?
I actually don't agree. I am playing "Devil's Advocate" here. If we did start measuring that way, what we would certainly get, is a LOT of separate PRs that would otherwise have been combined. We would also get no developer support in the #support channel on Discord, and they would also be incredibly hard to reach for conversation, because it all becomes about the next PR and nothing else.
Point is, you could be right, and @Liquid369 is not providing the value he should. Or, it could be that you are wrong, and communication is indeed an issue. Or, it could be a combination of both.
Another issue is this; should the more expensive developer be pressured to drop their price to be lower that other developers who charge less? Or, should it be that other presumably more skilled developers use it to justify charging more? The answer is probably a combination of both.
Having said that, if we extrapolate into the future, do we want all our developers to be centralized in the part of the world with the lowest cost of living? So, just developers from 3rd world countries? Which ones? Or, do we want them distributed? Also, do we attach value to someone who has proven loyalty over a long period of time? Or, do we 'discard' them for a brand new person, who might leave the next month?
How about risk? Do we only accept developers who can submit proposals with risk the price will crash before they can cash out? Those that can't accept that risk, do we tell them that's too bad and their proposal will be rejected unless they assume a higher PIVX price? Why do we get to make that risk decision for them? Shouldn't a developer be able to make that risk/reward decision on their own, and then the MNOs decide with their votes if that is acceptable? Has the developer proven their reputation of delivering what was promised, even when the price crashes? Should they not then also be able to benefit when the price increases, to offset that loss when the price moved against them before?
These and other factors involved, are for each MNO to consider, to decide on how they will vote.
What I can tell you is that this MNO sees the main issue is indeed poor communication. Once that is resolved, then any other 'real' issues become more clear. But, with good communication, well before developers need to make public 'jabs', I think such issues will resolve themselves within the team. That should be the goal.
I actually don't agree. I am playing "Devil's Advocate" here. If we did start measuring that way, what we would certainly get, is a LOT of separate PRs that would otherwise have been combined. We would also get no developer support in the #support channel on Discord, and they would also be incredibly hard to reach for conversation, because it all becomes about the next PR and nothing else.
Point is, you could be right, and @Liquid369 is not providing the value he should. Or, it could be that you are wrong, and communication is indeed an issue. Or, it could be a combination of both.
Another issue is this; should the more expensive developer be pressured to drop their price to be lower that other developers who charge less? Or, should it be that other presumably more skilled developers use it to justify charging more? The answer is probably a combination of both.
Having said that, if we extrapolate into the future, do we want all our developers to be centralized in the part of the world with the lowest cost of living? So, just developers from 3rd world countries? Which ones? Or, do we want them distributed? Also, do we attach value to someone who has proven loyalty over a long period of time? Or, do we 'discard' them for a brand new person, who might leave the next month?
How about risk? Do we only accept developers who can submit proposals with risk the price will crash before they can cash out? Those that can't accept that risk, do we tell them that's too bad and their proposal will be rejected unless they assume a higher PIVX price? Why do we get to make that risk decision for them? Shouldn't a developer be able to make that risk/reward decision on their own, and then the MNOs decide with their votes if that is acceptable? Has the developer proven their reputation of delivering what was promised, even when the price crashes? Should they not then also be able to benefit when the price increases, to offset that loss when the price moved against them before?
These and other factors involved, are for each MNO to consider, to decide on how they will vote.
What I can tell you is that this MNO sees the main issue is indeed poor communication. Once that is resolved, then any other 'real' issues become more clear. But, with good communication, well before developers need to make public 'jabs', I think such issues will resolve themselves within the team. That should be the goal.
Eric_Stanek
Well-known Pivian
Did you go to @Liquid369 first? Or, did you go straight to this forum? You imply the former, but I suspect the latter. Hope I am wrong. If I am right - that's not cool.
Alessandro Rezzi
Pivian
Ok so let me clarify my thoughts:
I agree with you that my message was more appropriate to be sent on the developer channel on discord rather than here, but now is too late.
I still think that the work done by Liquid on the last cycle has absolutely not been enough for the position of core developer and I'm sure that anyone with dev. skills will agree with me.
Said that Liquid is still a funded developer, the proposal passed and my opinion on his work can eventually change if he does better this month. And even if he does not improve the most I can do is voting no with my masternode, ultimately I am not the one that decides if a proposal passes or not and if the community votes yes I will anyways accept him as a PIVX developer (as any other funded developer).
I agree with you that my message was more appropriate to be sent on the developer channel on discord rather than here, but now is too late.
I still think that the work done by Liquid on the last cycle has absolutely not been enough for the position of core developer and I'm sure that anyone with dev. skills will agree with me.
Said that Liquid is still a funded developer, the proposal passed and my opinion on his work can eventually change if he does better this month. And even if he does not improve the most I can do is voting no with my masternode, ultimately I am not the one that decides if a proposal passes or not and if the community votes yes I will anyways accept him as a PIVX developer (as any other funded developer).
Cryptosi
Active Pivian
These are not Public Jabs, this is transparency in action. I agree with all of the rest of your observations, PR count isnt fair, but I'm very happy that the developers are holding each other accountable. This is excellent. Thanks guys
Eric_Stanek
Well-known Pivian
You didn't read the entire thread. Alessandro agreed with me that he should have gone to Liquid first for clarification. A 'public jab' is jumping to conclusions without going to the source and getting clarification first. This supports my point that team communication needs to improve. That's what I was referring to when stating we had communication issues with RZ and Fursy not keeping Fuzz in the loop in the past.
Also, in your video, you stated I always wanted to see developers combined into a single proposal. Nope. Never said that. I would prefer more finely grained individual proposals, but what I prefer has nothing to do with what is allowed. If developers decide to submit group proposals, they have that right. Perhaps you are confused with me supporting that people have the freedom to organize as they wish. We have seen it work well in both scenarios. I just prefer more small proposals compared to 'super' proposals. Then it is easier for MNOs or people like yourself, to review and engage with to hold developers accountable.
Last edited:
Eric_Stanek
Well-known Pivian
Perhaps you should read the PIVX Manifesto. The very first line states; "PRIVACY is non-negotiable. It's a basic human right." The very next line states; "FREEDOM is everything." So, expecting a PRIVACY and FREEDOM focused project, to somehow prevent the freedom of people to be private, is just plain stupid honestly.
There are some things that I would expect them to want to discuss in private. Then there are things that I would expect be transparent. But, it is not for us to decide. They get to decide. If we start getting the vibe that there are things we should know, that we don't, then that damages their reputation. So, they are motivated to be as transparent as possible.
So, No. Regardless if Allesandro's reference is to a convo in a public or private channel, this is not the same as the 4 people who don't have access to the PIVX Official Discord. Those people don't have access because they acted very poorly, over a long period of time, to the point of creating extreme divisiveness and chasing away good reputable and productive PIVians. While PIVX desires to include everyone, regardless of their views, those that take advantage of that desire, only to cause damage to PIVX, with no productive contributions, were warned many many times, and eventually banned.
By example, they proved that while people have to grow old, they don't have to grow up.
Last edited:
sh_rn
Administrator
Each PR contains a number of commits. I agree PR's are not a good measure, but a combination of code commits (which indicates actual code work done) and PRs (which can indicate problems solved) can be a good way to measure a developers productivity and contributions. It doesn't however take into account their time for research and testing which is still very difficult to measure with the workflow tools that are currently being used.
A possible way to improve this though is, if a developer is busy researching and testing and can't commit any code or submit PR's, then maybe they could consider producing documentation (directly on Github for eg) that keeps everyone updated with their progress, instead of a couple of sentences on Discord? That way the whole team, including contributors working on the marketing side, can be kept in the loop with the progress and potentially use some of the info for marketing content. Even if progress is stuck on something complex, we can turn that into interesting marketing content!
This is all a continuous learning process for everyone here, and I think criticisms and concerns should be allowed to be expressed in any form that a person feels comfortable expressing them. Whether that's on here, in DM's or in private groups. It's all valid and no one should be made to feel bad for expressing their concerns. I agree it would be best to approach someone directly if there's an concern, but maybe that avenue hadn't been productive in the past, or the person just didn't feel comfortable doing it that way. The forum is the only public space where everyone has access to discuss proposals, so it feels right that communication should be encouraged on here too.
Better communication is definitely needed all round, but it clearly isn't the main issue that has been raised by a few different people. The issue is clearly to do with the expected level of contribution and deliverables. Whether that's perception issue or actual is debatable of course. But these are still measurable even if a dev chooses not to communicate with co-workers. I've worked with a dev in the past that refused to join the main discord chat and also refused to answer questions publicly. He was by far the best dev we had on the team and delivered more code than anyone else ever did.
Totally agree on this. We (DAO contributors) all lost a significant amount from submitted proposals the last few cycles, and those of us that are still here working for a reduced rate fully deserve to be able to recover that chunk when it's possible. Imagine working for a traditional company and being told your salary would be 40% less for the next 3 months! Anyone would quit or take legal action. Yet, we're still here working. That's something that people who vote on DAO proposals seem to forget far too easily...
Just some thoughts.
A possible way to improve this though is, if a developer is busy researching and testing and can't commit any code or submit PR's, then maybe they could consider producing documentation (directly on Github for eg) that keeps everyone updated with their progress, instead of a couple of sentences on Discord? That way the whole team, including contributors working on the marketing side, can be kept in the loop with the progress and potentially use some of the info for marketing content. Even if progress is stuck on something complex, we can turn that into interesting marketing content!
This is all a continuous learning process for everyone here, and I think criticisms and concerns should be allowed to be expressed in any form that a person feels comfortable expressing them. Whether that's on here, in DM's or in private groups. It's all valid and no one should be made to feel bad for expressing their concerns. I agree it would be best to approach someone directly if there's an concern, but maybe that avenue hadn't been productive in the past, or the person just didn't feel comfortable doing it that way. The forum is the only public space where everyone has access to discuss proposals, so it feels right that communication should be encouraged on here too.
Better communication is definitely needed all round, but it clearly isn't the main issue that has been raised by a few different people. The issue is clearly to do with the expected level of contribution and deliverables. Whether that's perception issue or actual is debatable of course. But these are still measurable even if a dev chooses not to communicate with co-workers. I've worked with a dev in the past that refused to join the main discord chat and also refused to answer questions publicly. He was by far the best dev we had on the team and delivered more code than anyone else ever did.
Totally agree on this. We (DAO contributors) all lost a significant amount from submitted proposals the last few cycles, and those of us that are still here working for a reduced rate fully deserve to be able to recover that chunk when it's possible. Imagine working for a traditional company and being told your salary would be 40% less for the next 3 months! Anyone would quit or take legal action. Yet, we're still here working. That's something that people who vote on DAO proposals seem to forget far too easily...
Just some thoughts.
Cryptosi
Active Pivian
Sorry for misquoting you. perhaps it was 7hacks that argued for one general dev proposal. It was a long time ago and really personal attribution wasnt my point, wasnt trying to point fingers was more trying to look at the two different approaches and their pros and cons. I think this issue does support a single development proposal, or at least it highlights the problems (or potential problems) with each developer putting in individual proposals. I'm still of the opinion that public discussion is healthy, even if its critical.
Eric_Stanek
Well-known Pivian
No worries. I think a proposal should be easily understood by anyone, and formatted such that 'line items' or 'deliverables' are easily identified. This makes it very easy to hold the author accountable. As such, what defines if a proposal should be divided into smaller proposals, is not if it is one person or a team (of developers in this context) but, the content and complexity of the proposal itself. But, that's just my view. There is no consensus on this, let alone a way to enforce it or police it.
Having said all that, if it were me submitting proposals, I would rather have 10 small, well defined proposals, that others can easily engage in discussion with, and that I can easily report out on, than 1 'super proposal' with them all combined. A benefit of that too is that if I were to complete 9 of them in a stellar fashion, but screw up and fail badly on 1, I would still be at a 90% success rate. Further, it should be easier to make a clear and acceptable explanation why I failed at the one. (Shit happens to us all.) Combining tasks into a 'super proposal' and also adding 'line items' that are indirect objectives and therefore by definition difficulty to quantify, increases the odds the overall performance of that proposal owner will be suspect and their reputation will take a hit.
That's my 2 PIV.