When proposal 11432 appeared to be failing (the first version of the Q2 proposal), I began to talk with a few others, and to reach out to some developers with Tendermint and Cosmos-SDK experience in case an alternative proposal was needed (in addition to the alternative proposal 11463). I held off however for a few reasons, but two among those were: I wanted to see if the L1 team would put up an alternative proposal, and to see what that proposal may look like, and I did not have all the responses back, or enough details yet, from developers or from the development company that I had reached out to (who have since responded back in the positive in terms of their interest and practical details I requested). Those that agreed to be presented on an alternative proposal, or to at least work with Terra v1 if governance was/is agreeable, include a Tendermint and Cosmos-SDK developer that is a part of the Cosmos, Casbin, and Iris teams (~16 - 20 hours of contribution), and a development company that has relevant project experience in other blockchains and projects, and while looking to provide QA Testing, CI/CD, DevOps, and Project Management, is looking to enter into the Cosmos space, and has a consultant that has Terra experience (so anywhere from 40 - 60 hours of contribution comprising of at least a core and a contractor in this business). At this point I will most likely pass the contacts for these off to @nghuyenthevinh2000 privately for him to present to the L1 team, and if the L1 team appears receptive, then hopefully back to governance (depending on the L1 teams reception to them, or not). I still reserve the right to propose something in these regards later.
I am thankful that @nghuyenthevinh2000 and @fragwuerdig are part of the current L1 proposal, and to be honest, they really needed to be part of, or at least available to, whichever team ended up being selected (if not multiple teams) - to enable any transition from Q1 to Q2. @fragwuerdig being willing to self-sacrifice in order to help Terra v1 find a development solution brought a lot of respect from me (as one person among all of you in governance). I am very thankful too to hear that Ironman will be returning (and I hope that is true, since his role and knowledge are crucial in my estimation).
It appears to me, at least as an external observer, from my own experience with Project Management, that @LuncBurnArmy did a good job at Project Management, and the team accomplished a lot of work in a short period of time, and it a an enjoyable internal environment (according to the developers themselves). That points to good Project Management. The fact they held off on the next release for further testing is also very helpful (just as EK spent a lot of time and detail in testing, I would agree with others that testing needs to have an even more increased focus - the team needs a dedicated Quality Assurance testing role, for non-automated testing, and integration testing - even if developers still do preliminary testing of their code during development, and even if this person doing QA testing also has another role as available).
Reflections
TLDR version: Please be mindful going forward (for L1 team):
- to listen to governance and present ideas to governance (to help them assess situations and suggest solutions, rather than presenting them with something that feels it has already been decided and is bypassing governance or making unilateral decisions),
- Please move the intent back toward the original idea of the L1 Joint Task Force (a collition of developers within the community that work together across groups in the ecosystem, where the community supports the core members as they do work on the L1 for Terra v1),
- Please consider working together with trusted others in the ecosystem where appropriate and helpful. Please consider trusted others in the ecosystem in regards to potential recommendations to governance that go beyond primarily L1 (such as L2 work)
- Please in your consideration around the Agora issue, recognize that the community already has paid for a spend proposal, and it has been delievered, that included Agora, and is running on infrastructure that is scalable.
- If you really are considering moving grants out from quarterly to semiyearly (every 6 months), please understand that these are natural stopping points that governance has to review and correct situations from its end. These times should be closer together not further apart (which will only cause frustrations in greater proportion when it does come time to review). It allows governance to produce what should be hopefully more productive, and more helpful, oversight.
Longer Version:
That said, I am just sharing some honest thoughts for the L1 team to consider (since the proposal at this point appears very strongly supportive for your continued development). There are still elements of the current proposal, and things I have heard as plans the L1 team may propose to do, that I am still concerned by personally, in addition to a centralization that has been building for months around the team as an entity rather than the vision it was originally created for. The current proposal with amendments, and some explanations, did not, in my view, capture the real issues that governance had with the first proposal (at least from my personal perspective):
-
Listening to governance as a whole, and Unilateral problems/issues: Although the L1 Joint Task Force was originally intended to be a task force, it is starting to become a centralized entity regarding the blockchain. I think the issue came down to listening to the governance community as a whole, and not trying to unilaterally make decisions and bypass governance. I would say that even what others have mentioned in regards to a code of conduct, really has come down to these ultimate issues (failure to listen, and unilateral decision making bypassing governance). It should be remembered that it is documented that it is governance’s responsibility to determine the direction of the protocol and blockchain (particularly in changes to the protocol code, parameter proposals, and spend proposals). I say that also recognizing that each validators, as well as developers, based upon their own staked LUNA v1, are part of governance (and maintain the full ability to participate in governance). That does not mean that everyone on the L1 team has not listened, or has bypassed governance in their recommendations (but, it is at least something that I would ask that you ponder as you work with governance). These issues were why I, and probably many others, were concerned to hear that EK would not be part of the team for Q2, since his approach has been to work broadly with groups across Terra v1 (and that carried over into governance in a way that has built personal trust with many individuals).
-
An example from this proposal “L1 Task Force will seek to work with an L2 team* to develop ‘Classic Station’ (dependent on a separate governance proposal to come at a later date).” To me this is not presenting the idea to governance, it is stating something that has already been decided (the implementation of it appears to be open for discussion). That may not have been the intent, but it certainly has that feel (as a one-off example it means nothing, but taken within the context of the past quarter, and certain experiences, although certainly not all experiences, that is the impression it tends to give).
-
The L1 JTF was originally formed as a joint task force, and was not intended to be the central entity regarding the blockchain. It was meant to draw a coalition of developers in the Terra v1 that had gained community trust around their efforts in restoration, and to have the community help support them as they developed for Terra v1. That idea was one of working together, where it is productive, and stays within the proposals that have passed (that are not criminally abusive, negligent, outside the jurisdiction of Terra v1, or are illegal or put someone in a legally liable position). The Community Oversight Committee was established to provide oversight on the part of governance. Even though at one point there was concern that it would be used to bypass governance, instead it not only was not able to provide meaningful oversight on behalf of governance (although being in the name), but instead became a media arm of the L1 Joint Task Force. These are two examples of things that contribute toward that consolidation of influence into a single entity. When governance passes something on the idea that it would be a joint task force, or be an oversight committee, and that is not the direction things go, that is bypassing governance (and therefore leaves individuals in governance frustrated).
-
The point is, and really the reason I mentioned any of the point above, is in hopes that the L1 team recognizes the ability, including in its proposal discussions, to listen to governance as a whole, and in your attempts to address things with governance to present your ideas and reasons to governance rather than make them feel like the decision has already been made (for all practical purposes). And, I thank those of you who have been listening, and who have worked to present ideas and options, and help governance understand the technicalities, options for development, research, and pros and cons from a developers perspective.
-
-
L2 team and Agora: The L1 team was designed for L1 work primarily. That does not mean it should not process potential next steps with governance (as it has done at times). But, the mentions of L2, and Agora, in this proposal discussion are blindly ignoring a few things. As part of working with others in the ecosystem, where it is constructive: there is a clearly visible group in the Terra v1 ecosystem that has acknowledged that they are focusing on L2 work (Terra Rebels). Maybe that is part of what the upcoming proposal would discuss, in addition to any suggestions to governance from the L1 team, and reasons (but I get the feeling, from the little included in the proposal discussion here, that it is not even going to be considered). In addition, part of Terra Rebel’s prior grant for proposal 11030 included Agora. It seems that since they have noticed you mentioned also creating an Agora, they may have repurposed the Agora they setup as a support platform, but an Agora platform was part of that spend proposal, and it is running on scalable infrastructure. The point here is to consider working with trusted others in the ecosystem, where it is appropriate, and to consider that in your proposal recommendations as well (and of course that applies to each group in the ecosystem - to the degree we can, we can accomplish more together). Here I am asking for greater consideration in considering other teams in the ecosystem, not that it force you to, or hinder the L1 team in, make(ing) recommendations it does not believe in good conscience are best for the ecosystem, or the most helpful for coordination with L1 work.
-
Natural Review Points: Probably one of the most concerning things is the idea to move to a 6 month cycle. I realize this came second hand to be fair. My guess is that it is intended to provide more stability to developers (but it also limits the ability for natural points where governance, as a whole, may practically address issues it may have). If it is true that a 6 month cycle would be suggested, then lets be honest, this proposal, and the end of the quarter, functioned as an opportunity for governance to have to review the prior quarter (to determine as a whole if it would continue as is, or make changes - and it gave a natural point of asking if there may be more than one team doing development). I think it showed that governance had real concerns that they felt were not being listened to. The longer you draw those time frames out, the more frustration it may bring (since it becomes a natural stopping point for discussion). In my estimation, each developer, or development entity, should get their own spend proposal, proposed at the same time in slate, and come together under a common slate proposal discussion. That way, governance always has the actual oversight role in determining the makeup of the team. If the team functions well, these proposals would sail through like the IBC proposals, but if not, it gives governance a chance to correct that (in addition to any day to day internal operations processes among the team themselves), rather than having to have a build-up of frustration until that next time. I can understand though the practical side of why it might be proposed to move it further out, while still asking that you consider the natural pauses that give governance the ability to provide its own oversight (hopefully in a non-toxic environment).
Just a few things, personally, I find myself having concern over that I would like to ask that you further consider (and to be fair, I would like to thank you for the times where you have made efforts to work with governance, when you could have attempted to bypass, and even with best efforts and critics, you have made efforts to engage - and I thank you for that).
Thank you for your work and dedication to Terra v1 development.
I hope you have a great day today 