There is just a time when you have to point out the obvious.
This proposal is riddled with information that I do not feel is correct. When I compare the list from Q1 with the list that was outlined in response, while there may be some points that others would like to find contention with, I can say that it is obvious that the L1 team as a whole did deliver 3 solid months of work. In general, I share the following thoughts as well here. Zaradar was not the Lead Developer (Ironman was), he dealt with team management from what I understand (which is different than project management).
I find it interesting that the Rabbi has said:
In regards to swap mechanism - regarding coding:
While there is nothing wrong with putting up a proposal that offers options to governance, or researching, and working toward code for the market module and swaps, it does make me feel that some of the less than charitable evaluation of the L1 team’s performance (that goes beyond the honest criticism and concerns that others may also feel) may also be premeditated and a little more than meet the eye. Just an observation.
Here is my observation as someone who has numerous years of experience in the information technology field, including project management and software development. I do not have anything against the developers that are listed (or their capabilities). Yet, minus @fragwuerdig and @nghuyenthevinh2000 (and Ironman as Technical Lead / Lead Developer), and Jacob (who has said he would review the code - which to be fair he is pretty much already doing - even if his reviews and contributions after stepping away from the L1 team may have received less consideration than they may otherwise have), the others that have listed their skillsets so far do not have the background in Tendermint and Cosmos-SDK (and some without Golang itself). They also do not self report the level of experience in each of those skillset areas.
To put this in perspective, if I were consulted to provide a path for upskill, I would tell the client that it would take at least 1 month of intense upskilling (intense meaning time wise). That means that at least for some of these, they will not hit the ground running, or even walking, but this will be an investment into their upskilling (even if, and where, they do still make contributions). That is fine as long as the community unstands this - I do not think from what has been presented so far that they would be able to accomplish the tasks outlined in Q2 proposal (unless @fragwuerdig , @nghuyenthevinh2000 and Ironman carried the majority of the load - if they are on this team). That does not mean that the skillset of these other developers may not be helpful in other areas of the team, such as team management, or CI/CD flow to a good degree, or other DevOps aspects, or the surrounding technology that is written in Javascript/Typescript, but in my estimation, what the community needs for developers to do the work outlined in the Q2 proposal are the following:
- Golang,
- Tendermint,
- and Cosmos-SDK.
I would also expect that those developers can point to a repository, or repositories, that is/are public that lists a/some project(s), or at least a proof of concept project, that shows they possess these skills, and that if this team is given a grant that the developers develop with that account that listed their prior work or examples (at least for those who are identified as L1 senior developers related to direct L1 development).
Just some thoughts as the community looks to consider how, or who, will do development for L1.