When @Zaradar left TR his PR role was removed. TGF is the body that should have the Owner’s role. This is the body that acts on our behalf. With this in place the repos would be under the control of the community and not a private organization. The chain would then not be held at ransom.
The real issue is that there is always a person who creates the repository and he is the owner or the repository. Which is why, before TR kicked me out of the group, I kept asking Z who is the actually owner or the repository. It was Clan. Similarly, if Ed were to create a repository he would be the owner of the repo and he could, at will, remove other admins from the repo just like Clan did.
This is has already been submitted to Ed from me, as a part of a proposal, which is part of a bigger plan. It does have an independent review agency included in the plan. But that plan is in review currently, that’s all I can say about it. After Ed has reviewed it, can we discuss that in this forum.
It’s not as easy as a yes or no answer for this proposal. This is extremely difficult to decide what to do. We need more time to think.
There is just one request @ek826 let’s not be in a hurry with this one to make a proposal out of it asap. Let’s just think for a few days before taking a decision on this.
$160 for development changes isn’t even feasible. Who is spending that money? For 10 merges, it’s $1,600. I don’t know the inflation in the US right now, but in my currency that’s a lot 
though I know that cabbages are selling for $6.99 there.
Ed, I have much respect for you, but I feel this proposal has more cons than pros.
for one example:
there are many validators, which will cause more roadblocks due to inconsistency, not all validators think alike, and the top validators that hold a high amount of power can potentially collude and persuade other smaller validators for their own gain.
also as mentioned by another poster, we have validators that have lesser knowledge and may not be suitable to make major decisions that would be best for the chain.
voting YES will definitely lower or remove some protections set for the chain, the same validators that hold a lot of the power could possibly it for their own and their affiliates personal gains, while it may not happen, it most certainly is possible.
this the tricky one, I personally see this as a NO vote, to keep a canonical repository, but if there was a proposal to simply move the current repository to a non Terra Rebels, I would vote YES.
I would feel more secure if the repository was handled by someone seasoned and has the knowledge and qualifications to over see it.
2 Likes
Changing the canonical repository is viable and I guess a proposal would show what this would entail.
We definitely dont want it to remain as TR repos unless they are willing to hand them over to the community with all their roles removed. I think an organization repo can have multiple owners.
I say that we propose to change the canonical repository instead…away from Terra Rebels Repo
2 Likes
Definitely. And this is part of the problem.
This directly means that if TR is made a co-owner, they can remove the Task Force or if TGF is no longer associated to the Task Force, then the Task Force can remove the TGF.
Please do no consider anyone to be the “trusted” party here. That’s actually opposite to what Ed is saying. Please get over the hero complex, and this is for everyone.
GitHub isn’t my house. And I didn’t make it. So I don’t control how they have made their system. GitHub is probably the least secure repository service that there is. Most open source projects operate from GitHub cause, simply put, it’s convenient, and free for open source projects. But GitHub isn’t the service that should be used for such canonical repos, even if one is made. We should for BitBucket or something else who will be able to offer is a custom solution for our problem - our problem is that we need a repo governed by governance votes. GitHub doesn’t work like that. That’s obviously not how they have designed it.
These people are KYCED/doxxed. They are under our governance. TR was a private organization. The repos were theres to do what they please.
No questions asked here. Yes for me.
1 Like
TR is a private organization. TGF falls under our governance. I dont think they would risk acting out of governance rule. The validator choice is also very risky.
This is why the other proposal for the change of the canonical repo should be up for discussion.
I hope that communities could understand this proposal little more easily.
The LUNC/USTC chain is a chain that has already experienced massive failures. Setting up a Canonical Repo means that you have both ownership and legal responsibility for the chain that has already collapsed.
This can be understood by looking at the current situation in the TFL. All proposals have been proposed and voted on through the DAO, but the responsibility since the collapse of the chain is all directed at one person.
It’s very unfair, but that’s the reality.
In the future, depending on the development direction of LUNC, the value of the chain may increase or decrease. If it goes in a bad direction, the community will find the person responsible for the failure.
The current L1 Task Force team has its face and social status exposed. Even if they have a groundbreaking idea, this problem must be solved to try it.
“If it fails, who will be held liable?”
If all groups of DEV can participate, they can be a little more free about this.
Anonymous developers can attempt social experiments with LUNC with fresh ideas without legal responsibility.
But there are benefits and losses to every choice. The community should have the probability of being exposed to a swindler’s theft.
90% of community members who vote are not capable of auditing source code. They are easily instigated by political propaganda, and expect more from the participants’ reputation and recognition than the project’s potential.
This proposal would be a great one if it were combined with a reliable AUDIT REPORT and encouraged participation by a good development team.
It’s also the role of insurance where well-intentioned participants in the L1 Task Force don’t get into trouble in the future.
5 Likes
What I do know about TGF team.
1 Like
is that wont cause some bad intention devloper from reaching the code?? saying TR as example??
Ok you need to calm down now. Evidently, you are either not reading what you are pasting yourself, or you not understand the difference between a private and a public organization. It’s a very legal term and I do not expect you to know unless you are in the business of registering companies or are a chartered secretary yourself.
I also cannot go to lengths to explain things like these since it is not my prerogative to do so. Neither is it my prerogative to show TGF in a bad light. I can’t even do that since TGF and Ed have always acted in good faith and conscience.
This does not mean that I will direct all responsibilities towards TGF. This is not the reason for their constitution. This is not why it was made.
The community is separate and TGF is separate.
You might mix both of these things. But I cannot and I should not. I represent the community. I dunno who you represent.
P.S. how are even editing your posts before 30 mins? I don’t have that feature or someone gave me a slow mode for even editing my posts. Wow.
1 Like
I don’t think most of the validators are willing or ready to take the responsibility . They don’t even vote.
1 Like
**The grants program does not actually fund anything, just collects proposals, organizes independent reviews, makes recommendations via these reviews, and keeps projects accountable. All community spend proposals still need to go through governance and voting by the community.
If we apply this to the role that they will play in the canonical repo then it would be fair to say that they cannot make any role change to the repo without governance.
With respect to TR, let me state quite categorically that we did not enter any contract with TR so those repos belong to them. The JL1TF on the other hand are contractually bound to us. The canonical repo will be our intellectual property and I propose that TGF should be the “Owner” of the repo under our governance.
1 Like
Great proposal. LevatharNode validator will vote YES.
Yet, I think another proposal is necessary to propose the creation of a consultancy body, as there will be no central body to “control” the code, not all validators have the necessary skill set to analyse code. This consultancy body can be made up by the dev teams on lunc. What I mean is that Terra Rebels or L1 Task Force and others would need to discuss the changes at dev level. This will level the field and eliminate any biased forward guidance.Then a technical statement will be issued to inform the validators of the pros and cons. Then the validators can vote the proposals. This seems logical.
2 Likes
Thanks for saying this since this is my point as well - this is the basic job of TGF which the entire community DOES NOT CARE ABOUT.
I am literally the only human being who has submitted his proposal to TGF before even talking about it. TR had a direct problem with TGF so they wouldn’t submit their prop, Faffy was associated to TR, so he wouldn’t do it, Duncan also wouldn’t do it (or hasn’t done it yet). No one. Absolutely NO ONE.
And then you will yourself go and discuss the next proposal overtaking TGF and not caring about it. You were in TR server also as far as I remember discussing their props too. And you did not ask them to send it to send it to TGF first. A much better way to put it would be that I don’t remember, maybe you could have said it, but they did not listen. End result is the same - it DID NOT go through TGF.
Now you wish to give TGF one more responsibility apart from managing L1 development.
And if by chance, there is any error on the part of TGF in managing the repo, then could you please tag then and ask them if they are ready to go to court cause of that? If the answer is yes, then I will support this proposal.
Without financial and legal accountability (as mentioned on a comment before this by someone else) I cannot and should not support this idea.
The way it should be done is this:
A custom repository should be created which should be connected to the governance portal.
Repos are simply storage location. You can make a repo on IPFS also. You can make it anywhere. GitHub is just a service. The backend is customisable, as in, we can make our own GitHub, to put it in simple words. Ed would already know what I am talking about and he would have already considered it.
The reason he did not mention it is because it means spending more time on it in development time - which is chargeable. He doesn’t need to say it also. For experienced programmers also, this might take up to a month of dedicated time and testing to make.
But, this is exactly how I would like to see it. Even if it requires another community spend proposal.
The future isn’t today. We are not planning for today. We are planing for 10 years down the line when there will be no TR, no TGF, no you, no me. We shouldn’t have to do this forever. The best code in the world does not need intervention after it has been setup. So we should aim for the best solution, not a hack. Not a small fix that will have to be changed tomorrow again.
At least, I am not interested to fight more cases in the court than there are already pending to fight for. So if you volunteer to fight legal battles for us, I will say yes to the proposal, as is. For that, you need to doxx yourself with a government authority and submit your identity with the community so that if anything wrong happens, you can go to court and fight for us. As simple as that.
1 Like
A Change Advisory Board between dev team reps with the involvement possibly of Validators with the know-how?
Hello @arunadaybasu,
Not sure why you would make things up, if you don’t know you can simply say that you don’t know and it’s OK. In his initial TGF proposal @ek826 stated
And I did not feel the need to submit my proposal via TGF. Good for you if you feel like it. I guess you do you and I do me. Nothing to do with TR whatsoever, nice try
1 Like
What? I think you have the wrong person if this is in reference to me.
We dont need any “quick-fix”. At this point @ek826 should realize the community needs transparency.
We should be looking at two proposals.
- Canonical Repo for Terra Classic
- No-Canonical Repo for Terra Classic
The only thing required is for them to be is the “owner”-the guardian of the repo. This validator proposal as I have said maybe a recipe for disaster in the long run.
Reason #1. The distribution of validator voting powers. I dont think I need to give any detail on this.