I have never put up a proposal for voting. We do communicate in the twitter space .
I concur. It’s dysfunctional in this respect as noted by the clause:
In my opinion it should not be there. It’s opening up a can of worms. If TGF is not the guardian team for the LUNC community then we may become prey for hungry vultures. Hence, my cry has been for "A BOARD of DIRECTORS’ for LUNC delegators to have some form of autonomy in the Lunc community
Yes I wasn’t replying to you then. I was replying to Faffy. Sorry for that.
If community wants to revive the project, we should concentrate on USTC repeg and burn USTC tokens.
Step 1: All taxes should be converted to USTC (not LUNC) and burn until USTC reaches 1$.
Step 2: After that for minting new USTC tokens LUNC tokens will be removed and burned.
Try to concentrate on the key objectives of the project.
Also someone contacted with Binance for getting additional funding?
No and changing Terra Rebel team.
Deja Vu.
In @echel0n’s words
Is the the road we want to trod? The elephant in the room is “TRUST”. In this great community we call LUNC , is there no one among us delegators that can take on the mantle of protecting the intellectual property of the chain? If no, then we can kiss the BIG dream about LUNC, Goodbye. All we want is a trusted group to have the “Owner’s” role for the repo.
Here is my simple solution:
The bottomline is that validators must not have the control of this chain. This proposal should not advance to the voting stage . The risk is too great.
No one needs “Owner” role as thats more for the org, however, permissions can be granted on that specific repo that would give full-admin privs over it to specific users, no need to hold passwords and no worry about someone being able to take control of the repo either, honestly, someone just needs to step up and start asking for what they need, open a line of communication with us, its really that simple.
I would also like a 3rd option.
Change the canonical repository to L1 repository at least until our “agreement” (currently 3 month) is valid. After that we can re visit this or if we “sign” a further funding “contract” it just stays with the L1 until there is a need for that to change.
If they are ok with that of course.
Otherwise we risk situations like the 10983 proposal or even worse.
I just want to get a deeper understanding of why this proposal was offered first. Your willingness to suggest a solution has sparked my interest.
From reading i gather that there are three types of Accounts on the Github Enterprise server:Personal, Organization and Enterprise. Which one does TR have?
@Zaradar PR role was disabled. Who has the power to do that?
Who grants that permission. Maybe the answer to the above will address this question.
What are the benefits of the JL1TF reaching out to TR as opposed to them “starting all over again”?
Is the reason for the No Canonical Repo proposal based on the fact that the JL!TF does not have a PR role on the TR repos and is thus serving the purpose of an easier workaround?
Can you elaborate on this.
TR has just a regular free GitHub org account, I disabled / reset all permissions across the entire org and all repo’s as over the past 8 months it looks like people just ran around granting permissions without thinking about what they where doing, so from a security standpoint, it was a freaking nitemare that needed to be corrected, tho I’m unsure what “PR” role exactly is since anyone can make a pull-request to a repo …
I can grant user-specific permissions to the “classic” repo, the benefits to them reaching out to us to get this done is exceedance really, and tbh, nothing is stopping them from writing code right now and then submitting it back as a pull-request after forking the repo, creating a new branch, and merging their code into that new branch, then submitting the PR by doing a comparison of changes, there’s actually MANY ways to do it.
We could also just as easily grant a non-destructive “Maintain” role to someone from their side, more info on permissions / roles can be found at Managing teams and people with access to your repository - GitHub Docs
pay us first then you guys will get permission, is that like the plan. 
Provide Ed with the same permissions you have please.
Doesn’t work like that since we have other repo’s under the org that are being worked on that do not concern that team, if they want us to provide them or someone specific with “maintain” role for that specific repo, we are more then happy to do that, they just need to reach out to us and communicate that.
Feels like a TR server now finally 
I’d rather have the L1 task force in charge instead of a bunch of validators. who as we know already have way too much voting power. lets get the L1 task force in charge and the 3wise men(community liason team)can help oversee their moves and flush TR away… 
also in terms of the liason team to not be changed as some YouTubers and influencers have hidden agendas.
First its no problem at all, one just needs to ask for the permissions - then its not possilbe.
It would be great if you could provide the same level access you enjoy - if it doesn’t work that way this proposal needs to go ahead so the new dev team can work unhindered.
LUNC Community voted to nominate an L1 dev team (and allocated funding) which is enough mandate to:
IMO these are simple solutions to the problem and completely acceptable by the community.
What you proposed seems complicated to achieve in contrast.
Noted with thanks.
Wouldn’t that create an issue where you can remove those permissions?
What if for one reason or another you decide to “walk away”, who will have the power to control access to repos?
I am not certain if you are known(KYCED) by @ek826 or @Zaradar to allow for a "TRUST ME, your permission to the “terra” repo will never be removed? How will this be negotiated if the JL1TF reach out to you?
As a member of the LUNC community, I just want simple solutions to problems that will not place
the community in any form of gridlock.
I’ve been around from the very start, they both know who I am, I’m still here, TR has 9 other members that can also manage GitHub permissions if needed.
Honestly, I’m fine with whatever the decision is for the canonical repo, I was just trying to present options that were simple and fast.
Just a side comment:
This is a unique problem and demands an innovative solution.
The solution of the no canonical repo, although slightly tricky in our case, is actually a fantastic business product if I just look at it from a singular point of view.
The idea of the code residing in the blockchain is an even better product.
I believe if these are made into business products (accessible to the public for use) to make custom repo’s controlled by governance votes, then this is something that people will use the Terra Luna Classic blockchain for. As a utility for the chain.
In my view whatever we are discussing here apart from Git are fantastic utilities in general. No one has made such utilities anywhere yet.