Not really, if you think about it he has to apply like everyone else.
Unfortunately for him, due to his emotional behavior on social media space, HIS (and only his) position vetting also depends on a Governance vote by the community
So bottom line WE get to choose if we want him back or not. That is provided he even declares an interest in the position or people persuade him to applyâŚwhich first, from where am standing looks a bit unlikely but then again not impossible.
Btw, @LuncBurnArmy thank you for returning the surplus from the Q1 budget to the Community Pool.
Maybe not on a blue sky day, but when we were in the gutter they were one of the very few willing to break some eggs and DO things in a structured and methodic way (there was a lot of ppl chatting their heartâs content away. Doing, not so much). I know firsthand and wasnât even part of their LUNC recovery community. So am afraid you are not quite right here.
@Vegas, on the other side itâs thanks to @RabbiJebediah, @arunadaybasu, @Mpowski and the rest of the guys applying pressure and scrutinizing what was delivered in Q1 that those excess 233M LUNC found their way back to the Community Pool. We need people checking things out and scrutinizing records to make sure the maximum benefit for our community. At the very least any risky decision made is done with our eyes open.
We are truly stronger together. I just wish as we move forward, we keep things to the point, get rid of the excess he/she said drama, and get down to a risk/reward analysis of things.
I have been around long enough to know exactly how this ends up.
For the past year, the same people have been pushing everyone else out so they can bootstrap their startup and be the ones to benefit from what they saw as a lifetime opportunity.
The worst part is they donât have the tools anyway to benefit from it or turn it into a successful business.
1 year later we are literally in the same place.
So they have resorted to keep billing the community continuously while keeping sole control of the chain so they can benefit from the various deals and sponsors (Neblio like) such a position will generate.
I donât see WHY WE MUST NOT TRY ANY OTHER TEAM OR DEVS OR INDIVIDUALS.
Pls see screen below, thats just an example but you could literally have 8 DEVS and get over with all these non value adding tasks so we can finally start moving.
But hey, no way, we donât want to share the cake, and we want to be the only ones in control.
Even Ed has left, that should tell you a lot.
The idea of a unique team billing repeatedly on a quarterly basis is perhaps the worst thing which happened to us. It is a cancer.
There is no more incentive to succeed, you just keep coming back every quarter for your dose. Itâll get even worst when we get dApp and this team can sign up on deals to promote / support / maintain.
We must break free from this routine and remind people that they work for the chain, not the other way around, that we just need a functional chain and weâll sort everything else ourselves, we donât need to be assisted or for people to think/decide for us.
I donât like either (at all!) the idea of one L1 team and would prefer multiple L1 groups competing for a development gig. At the same time, I need to be pragmatic as to what is the status of things right this moment.
Afaik (unfortunately), there hasnât been any alternative L1 team that has come forward to introduce themselves to the community. Hopefully, there will be some soon (at least in Q2) and everyone in here will get to know them and assess their knowledgeâŚ
So, this is where we are, and the reward I see in my risk/reward book says right now we need to keep moving forwardâŚat least until we reach parity. We can afford a much longer break when we have reached that milestone.
If you (or anyone else) know of people/teams that could be one of our L1 teams please reach out to them and encourage them to come forward and introduce themselves to us officially in Agora.
There is @Bilbo and co theyâre 5-6 and ask for 50K$ for a month or 1.5 months. At this price, I think we should try them (even if we renew the 2 current developers).
There wonât be any team coming after Q2 because none will be allowed.
If they do they will be asked to work under this team.
Thatâs how things are.
Kind reminder that if this prop passes there will be more unused money outside of CP than in CP.
We have seen it all before with @aeuser999 , remember when it was only TR under the direction of Z which was allowed to work on the chain ?
I think we just need to get over with these upgrades rather than continuously billing. We donât need L1 to do Ziggy, L2, tutorials etc. We just need them to do what we paid for which is parity and stability.
One person is not a team. They need to organize, chat things out themselves, and present to us officially in AgoraâŚ
Members in here can then ask questions and see whatâs what in terms of know/how jokers or not
Definitely, L2 work shouldnât be an L1 thing at present; but will be at some point when we need to address the re-peg issue, and work is needed on chain mechanics to support those. Weâre just too far from it while the parity checkpoint hasnât been cleared yet.
Baby stepsâŚ
All the drama ITT aside, the simple fact is this proposal is incomplete. Allocating funds to vacant roles is unacceptable. Full stop.
It seems many have forgotten that restoring Terra Classic is a for-profit, business venture, and anyone with business experience knows a budget needs to be precise.
The community has a responsibility to critically evaluate the proposals set before us if we want Terra Classic to be successful. Regardless of what you think about the specific personalities involved here, we cannot release tens of thousands of dollars to empty chairs. Set aside emotion for a moment and think soberly about this.
In principle yesâŚhowever what profit are you expecting to have with a chain that does not support external dApps since it hasnât reached parity?
The current L1 also did mention that unused funds will be returned to the CP at the end of G2. Itâs not ideal, again, but it is what it is given above is still a work in progress!
Thanks for a mention. Everyone in the community played/plays or will play some important role. That is true. What is also true that no-one is always right and in LUNC its particularly visible that Leaders come and go. Anything that I highlighted does not mean these pepole were bad/made mistakes from the start. I was a fan since TR was founded, of every personality onboard. However as time went by, mistakes have been made. Itâs important that we keep evolving in my opinion. Imo what we need to âevolve fromâ at the moment is centralisation and tradfi elements.
Sir, I want parity and I want meaningful L1 development. It is precisely because I want these things that I am criticizing this poorly thought out, amateurish proposal. We would be laughed out of the room if we were to bring this proposal offline to potential investors essentially saying âgive us $20k for some people, we donât know who yet, but weâll figure it out we promise. Just give us your money now.â
LBA clearly has no problem submitting amended proposals, so he should come back with a complete version of this prop with all the roles filled. We can wait; LUNC isnât disappearing anytime soon. We need to protect what limited funds the CP has left so Q2 funding must be done properly. We cannot afford sloppiness.
Creating a false sense of urgency (âItâs now or never!! This offer only available for a limited time!!!â) is a cheap sales tactic more fitting for a used car dealership than a billion dollar blockchain.
LBA needs to come back with a fully realized proposal that has all the roles occupied. Until then, this prop must be voted down.
I would be lying if I said that youâre not making a valid point.
Iâm just not so sure about this statement though. I really feel we are against the clock and if we donât make ourselves available where everyone (dApp) else is, to capture a market share, the rising tide will float everyone elsesâ boat but ours.
Maybe itâs just me
Q: For the senior dev role, is Tobias already gone or is he going to work through Q2 until a replacement is hired? This matters because if he is still working, and going to do a proper transition to a replacement, then there is no reason at all to dispute that line item.
Comments:
Iâve had TPMs on my ProServe team that made $150k. They were top notch though. I really think some people in these threads donât realize the value of technical work. There is nothing wrong with the price of any of these line items, including the TPM role. To some extent we need to realize if we under-pay these roles, weâll get less quality and talent and that will only hold the chain back due to the work output.
There is also some nonsense going on in this thread about not paying for headcount that isnât hired yet. How exactly do you think the team is going to add headcount without an ability to pay for it? Those funds need to be ready in order to attract some of the talent pool. There will be quality devs that wonât join on the hope that funding for their work will come in a later proposal. The money has to be ready to allocate.
TPM - LuncBurnArmy, I donât doubt you can do the role. You clearly have the background for it. But you need to be detailed and forthcoming. The last round of two proposals were so convolutely written that I couldnât even tell which one went to which version of the proposal. As a TPM you need to bring clarity to this project. If you report to the community regularly on the spending then I think we as a community can fund all these positions and be comfortable knowing what part of the budget was spent on what and when. What we donât want, for example, is to approve a yet-to-be-determined position, fund it, have it filled halfway through the quarter, but lose the entire quarterâs value of that line item. you need to maintain a financial accounting of the funds approved, carry them over quarter-to-quarter if not fully used, and report on them regularly. This financial accountability is something all of my best TPMs did on their projects.
This proposal is heading towards yes vote from me.
