rehrar: 0. Introduction

rehrar: Hi everyone, welcome to the meeting.

pwrcycle: hi all

rehrar: 1. Greetings

ArticMine: hi

cryptochangement: wazzup errybody

xmrscott[m]: Salutaions

erciccione_[m]: hi"

_Slack: <sean> Hey

Caesarion: heya.

rehrar: It appears we have a quorum

rehrar: 2. Community highlights

rehrar: So...stuff has happened in the community.

rehrar: sgp usually has stuff prepared, but he's dead to us for the next day or so

rehrar: and he asked me last night so I didn't have much time to prepare, I apologize.

xmrscott[m]: Thanks to rehrar and pigeons our Taiga instance is upgraded to 3.3 This introduces two noteworthy features: being able to assign multiple members to a task and tasks having Due Dates to help priortize tasks. Hopefully both should be useful to whatever workgroup(s) you find yourself in. More release notes can be found here: https://blog.taiga.io/taiga-picea-mariana-release-330.html

rehrar: let's do it this way: "Have you done anything exciting recently for Moenro?"

cryptochangement: *crickets*

cryptochangement: endogenic and MyMonero team has their dope MyMonero app in pre-release

rehrar: oh yeah, das purty cool

pwrcycle: not exactly for monero, but i coded up sterlingVPN.com to use extend my PaymentID usage for signups.

erciccione_[m]: the guide for the GUI is ready and a i published a PDF release

erciccione_[m]: https://github.com/monero-ecosystem/monero-GUI-guide/releases/tag/1.1

erciccione_[m]: the pony will embed it wit the binaries of the GUI

rehrar: which we have hope will be done one day

parasew[m]: michael from open hw and other monero community members met up in paralelni polis yesterday, they also have been discussing defcon.

rehrar: "faith is believing what you know cannot be true" ~ Abraham Einstein

erciccione_[m]: yeah iirc he ha some problems with a failed hard drive

fluffypony: erciccione_[m]: is there any value in embedding an HTML version in the actual GUI?

cryptochangement: you mean like package it into the .zip?

cryptochangement: or tarball

cryptochangement: or whatever

fluffypony: no I mean like embed it in an HTML viewer in a window

fluffypony: so you click help and it shows that

cryptochangement: oh cool

erciccione_[m]: fluffypony: that would be cool actually

erciccione_[m]: but maybe with the markdown version

rehrar: alright, any other updates?

rehrar: ok, let's get down to the nitty gritty

rehrar: We'll jump to 4. Core Team FFS funds reallocation discussion - when/how should funds be reallocated to other projects?

rehrar: pinging fluffypony ArticMine luigi1111w binaryFate smooth NoodleDoodle othe

rehrar: For those who may or may not know, there was some discussion last meeting about reallocating XMR to the hardware fund

rehrar: specifically from the seemingly failed Tracking Challenge

rehrar: the Tracking challenge did not just not reach funding goals (and expired), it also had some pretty bit problems that as of yet have not been reconciled regarding proving authenticity of someone winning the challenge

rehrar: i.e. people thought it was too easy to game. take the money for themselves, since there is a good amount of trust involved in the set up

rehrar: both proposals are available for viewing in "Funding Required": https://forum.getmonero.org/8/funding-required

ArticMine: So the FFS was not properly conceived from the beginning?

dEBRUYNE: If you reallocate funds to a specific proposal you automatically presume the donors are okay with that particular proposal

dEBRUYNE: Which they may not be

rehrar: it would seem so ArticMine

rehrar: dEBRUYNE: but if a proposal expires, doesn't the XMR go to the general fund anyways?

pwrcycle: If it didn't reach the goal in time, re-allocating seems resonable, aside from any other issues with a proposal.

dEBRUYNE: Yes, which is the preferred option in my opinion

fluffypony: rehrar: yes, but we've never had a proposal expire because they didn't have due dates

cryptochangement: it seems like the other logical option would be to send it to the hackerone bounty since it is in the same spirit so the donors would most likely be OK with that

rehrar: we have to remember that the forum funding system is not meant to be a completely trustless option. It relies on trust of the core team. Meaning people should know when they donate to a FFS proposal that it might expire, and fall under stewardship of the core team.

selsta: who funded the hardware wallet?

fluffypony: selsta: Monero is a private cryptocurrency...

rehrar: If this makes them uncomfortable (cuz it might be given in ways they don't agree with) they can choose not to donate, or seek other funding arrangements (ala fireice)

selsta: fluffypony: :P

ArticMine: My preference is the general fund since it is neutral.

erciccione_[m]: i think the point here is to decide a general workflow for expired proposals

parasew[m]: +1 for open hw wallet, the guys are rly doing a great job, but need more funds to proceed

dEBRUYNE: Their proposal is fully funded already fwiw

rehrar: dEBRUYNE: proposal was also made before the crash

xmrmatterbridge: <michael> Yes, funds are enough.

luigi1111w: as the administrator, I just buy an occasional lambo. I figure it equals out.

fluffypony: LOL

cryptochangement: I kinda feel like the FFS terms (which I think is in an unmerged PR to the meta repo) should be worked into the FFS so it is easier to find

dEBRUYNE: rehrar: That's the responsibility of the proposer though

fluffypony: luigi1111w: you should bring a Lambo to Consensus 2019, really get the scandal going

luigi1111w: :)

rehrar: you guys need to show up in rag clothing. Opposite end of the spectrum.

luigi1111w: license plate: tks ffs

dEBRUYNE: Lambogate soon^tm

rehrar: show how really down to earth and humble Moenro is

fluffypony: LOL

cryptochangement: "look at fulffypony looking like a hobo after Monero tanked"

cryptochangement: - r/monero probably

rehrar: *most upvoted and commented thread in the subreddit*

rehrar: either way, there's many many FFS growing pains. Simply because many situations haven't happened.

rehrar: 0mq, firceice's, etc. This is just another.

rehrar: And how this is handled will set precedent.

floam412: fluffypony in cargo shorts, moon shirt, a 24K gold "MEA", riding shotgun in luigi's lambo

rehrar: ArticMine says general fund since it's the most neutral

floam412: whatta photo op

rehrar: I would agree with that.

cryptochangement: the general fund usually contributes to FFSes so why not just move them to the general fund and send a good portion of the reallocated funds to new FFSes that need funding

erciccione_[m]: this is why i think we should define what to do with expired/unsuccesfull workflow instead of focusing on what to do with this specific one. what about a separed wallet for failed proposal, and we can decide on meetings where those money should go

rehrar: two formalization proposals available for discussion: https://github.com/monero-project/meta/pull/87 https://github.com/rehrar/meta/pull/1

cryptochangement: erciccione_: It would need to be made clear to donors that funds get reallocated if a deadline isn't met

rehrar: the second one, by ajs to my repo is the one we worked on together so is the freshest one

erciccione_[m]: the problem is that people donated for that specific proposal, so i think a feedback from the community would be necessary, before moving those funds and use them for something else

ArticMine: cryptochangement makes a very good point. The failed proposals can be used to offset part of the cost to the general fund of funding and providing seed funding to FFS

floam412: why not have the funds go into a separate wallet like erciccione was saying, but have a dedicated time bi-annually to decide on where to allocate funds and deem projects as "unsuccessful"... maybe it can follow the hardfork schedule time frame

erciccione_[m]: cryptochangements: that's why i feel we really need to define what to do with failed proposals and keep that as a standard for the future

rehrar: but this begets the question to be asked from the core team, should the ffs terms be formalized?

rehrar: ArticMine fluffypony luigi1111w binaryFate

rehrar: or should it be fluid and flexible (at the will of the core team, since it relies on you guys anyways)

endogenic: end of the day, humans have to guide it imo

ArticMine: They can be formalized but it is important from the perspective of de centralization to keep it as simple as possible

erciccione_[m]: floam412: we don't have that many failed proposals, i think we can decide during meetings, but we need a pattern to follow anyway

rehrar: Option 1: Core Team accepts formalization and abides by the formalized rules agreed upon by the community. Doesn't leave a lot of flexibility for edge cases, and if something isn't done exactly like in the rules, it gives ammunition to outsiders

rehrar: Option 2: We say it's better to have the flexibility on the edge cases since they are so rare, and thigns work pretty smoothly without formalization, and trust the core team to come up with good decisions on said edge cases

rehrar: (meaning we abandon a formalization endeavor)

endogenic: opt 1 sounds unnecessary and dangerous, kind of defeats the point..

rehrar: current guidelines: https://forum.getmonero.org/7/open-tasks/2379/forum-funding-system-ffs-sticky

erciccione_[m]: fwiw, i was proposing a minimal pattern to follow, where community is involved. since they put the money

pwrcycle: I vote for Option 2. flexibility is better. This is an edge case anyway. give the funds to Core team and let them re-allocate.

endogenic: binaryFate for ex is a comp scientist, who else do we trust to give opinions on what's worth funding?

ArticMine: Or a simplified option 1 where the funds go to the general fund and in effect creates option 2, since the core team controls the general fundd

rehrar: the risk we take in option 2 is the fact that because things are ill defined, a lot of people will whine (as has happened in the past couple months) "We demand explanations for what happened to this money. It just went to the core team? How do we know they're not just enriching themselves at the expense of the community."

luigi1111w: because we never have company dinners :(

rehrar: ArticMine: I think that's the way forward, yes.

rehrar: There has also been some discussion about open accountability and transparency regarding the general fund moneys

endogenic: is the wallet view key up for publishing?

selsta: it is I think

rehrar: I think it is published, but it only does incoming, not outgoing, correct?

luigi1111w: it used to be

luigi1111w: not sure where it is now

floam412: I say option 2 as well.. but I think it would be nice to have the decision making process available out in public via a detailed explanation on reddit, bitcointalk, etc. and then people can respond to it. If there is an overwhelmingly large amount of users that are unhappy with the decision for whatever reasons, maybe decide on what to do from there

endogenic: (does that pose a danger to output taint? lol)

erciccione_[m]: rehrar: i propose again a different wallet for failed proposals for that very reason

selsta: the viewkey is in the bitcointalk post

rehrar: we can keep track via view key of all donations made TO the general fund, but if luigi buys a new coffee mug with it, we'd never know

endogenic: rehrar can we look at what amounts contributed to a given proposal?

dEBRUYNE: Only the viewkey of the general dev fund is public afaik

endogenic: rehrar: if so we can have greater insight into accountability

dEBRUYNE: If you have the view key of the FFS wallet you can sort by payment ID

rehrar: any core team member want to remark on general fund transparency?

vp11: I don't think we will see that many failed proposals. Usually an idea is moved to "funding required" when the community already provided good feedback and intention to donate.

endogenic: yeah dEBRUYNE they could just have done multiple txs too youre right

erciccione_[m]: dEBRUYNE: that sound like a good solution

vp11: I agree with ArticMine for a simplified option 1. funds go to general fund and stewards can apply this money elsewhere immediately if necessary.

endogenic: erciccione_[m]: pid is not required tho no?

endogenic: plus getting phased out

dEBRUYNE: There's two things here -> 1. The general dev fund, whose view key is public | 2. The FFS wallet, whose view key is not public

dEBRUYNE: For the latter you could sort by payment ID to get donations to a specific proposal

luigi1111w: rehrar you mean like publishing key images or something?

dEBRUYNE: But you'd need the private view key

vp11: endogenic, pid is necessary when donating to specific ideas, but sometimes people can forget and talk directly to a core team member with proof of payment to allocate the resources.

erciccione_[m]: endogenic: iirc it should be

endogenic: vp11 ah i didnt realize that was still the case

erciccione_[m]: because that's how you know which proposal you are funding

rehrar: luigi1111w: that'd probably be the way it'd have to be done, yeah

rehrar: not my idea, mind. Just saw some talk of that over the past couple months in a few threads.

rehrar: although it is telling that these people never seem to find their way into meetings to discuss this stuff, and so could just be 'concern trolling'

vp11: I know that this is not the focus of the discussion, but maybe the FFS wallet view key should also become public so people can audit it if they want.

selsta: this whole talk started with the forum software being buggy and showing 404s for old proposals

rehrar: my above concern trolling comment applies to both the general fund and the ffs btw

cryptochangement: selsta: guess who made a big deal about that lol

luigi1111w: both viewkeys being public is fine by me

rehrar: yes, my reimplementation of the ffs (which can be viewed at getmonero.org/forum-funding-system) is awaiting a couple final touches from the pony man

dEBRUYNE: I am not sure what the benefit is of making the second view key public

rehrar: and it is Git run like the rest of the site, so everyone has a view of everything always

rehrar: no more server reliance

erciccione_[m]: dEBRUYNE: +1, that wouldn't be useful at all imho

vp11: dEBRUYNE, you mean, for the FFS wallet?

rehrar: Here's my final thoughts on the matter. The fact that nobody who has had these 'significant problems' with the ffs or general fund attends these meetings, or is here to discuss these things at the appropriate times, signals to me that it's not that big of an issue. They just like to whine about things and don't want to see changes.

selsta: cryptochangement: our favorite concern troll lol

dEBRUYNE: vp11: yeah

cryptochangement: dEBRUYNE: yea as long as none of the people using the FFS complain about getting stiffed then there is no reason to think the core team is pocketing the money

luigi1111w: wink wink

erciccione_[m]: rehrar: the problem is not about who made the proposal but about who funded it

dEBRUYNE: You wouldn't be able to see if they pocketed the money with merely the view key though

dEBRUYNE: One sweep_all by luigi1111w and itsgone^tm

endogenic: rehrar: i don't necessarily agree.. have we confirmed they know they must come to these meetings?

luigi1111w: although..

endogenic: and are able to

luigi1111w: that sounds like an administrative headache

luigi1111w: "where did this output go"

luigi1111w: ugh

dEBRUYNE: :D

rehrar: erciccione_[m]: and for this, we implement articmine's proposal. An expiry date on all ffs proposals. Goes to general fund if not.

dEBRUYNE: I'd propose to keep it simple

dEBRUYNE: And just adhere to -> An expiry date on all ffs proposals. Goes to general fund if not.

selsta: ^

rehrar: ^

vp11: FFS projects were never "very" formal, so I don't think the authors knew about expiring dates, or that they should come and report to the community meetings, etc.

endogenic: vp11: not the authors, the funders

erciccione_[m]: that's ok for me dEBRUYNE but i would still like an imput for the community for failed proposal

vp11: as far as I'm concerned, both :P the community funded your project, both the funders and the funded have an informal obligation to do follow ups.

rehrar: we should have somewhere posted "PLEASE READ the terms of the ffs BEFORE you make a proposal or donate to one"

vp11: rehrar, you're absolutely right

luigi1111w: also please remember to start with [your name]:

luigi1111w: plz

erciccione_[m]: s/for/from

monerobux: erciccione_[m] meant to say: that's ok from me dEBRUYNE but i would still like an imput for the community for failed proposal

cryptochangement: erciccione_: this kinda is input from the community. sgp posted on reddit saying this would be discussed so if somebody is concerned but didn't show up that's kinda their fault

vp11: once these 'rules' and 'terms' are defined, they need to be written in a very clear form and in an accessible way to everyone participating

rehrar: "By donating to the ffs, you agree to the informal terms laid out in xyz document"

endogenic: we should bury "free lambo" in there since no one reads those anyway

rehrar: and it's a good first barrier too. If we see a ffs proposal that doesn't meet at least those bare minimum requirements, then how can we trust them enough to actually follow through on the proposal?

erciccione_[m]: cryptochangements: yes, i'm just saying we should use this process every time we face this issue

rehrar: although, it may not be as uncommon as we think

rehrar: Kasisto and Monero Observer have fallen off

rehrar: Although I talked with Kasisto guy and he's still going, just not as quickly as he'd have hoped.

rehrar: And I'm impressed with his work so far so I'm inclined to believe.

rehrar: I messaged Monero Observer guy, and I know he had a kid or something, so his time evaporated, but still haven't heard a response from him.

rehrar: These types of situations actually happen a decent amount

vp11: rehrar, in fact the ideas that do not adhere to the "rules" won't even be moved to "funding required".

cryptochangement: see what children do...

rehrar: and this is an issue, because the people, in their proposals, set a timeline for themselves

rehrar: i.e. "be done by January" or whateer

rehrar: and if it's not done by January, does it just automatically go to general fund, or give them an opportunity to explain themselves via meeting

rehrar: maybe they have good reason, etc.

rehrar: this needs to be in the rules too

vp11: I think you might want to remove the "judge" role as much as you can from the core team.

erciccione_[m]: yes, that was exactly my point rehrar

vp11: How milestones work? Once I declare that I finished my proposal/milestone the core team releases the fund?

rehrar: yes, usually

vp11: so I think one viable course of action would be...

rehrar: I will remake my FFS terms proposal to be simpler along the lines of what ArticMine said

vp11: once the expire date arrives, the author has a 1 or 2 weeks grace period to go to the community meeting and "close" his project, like explaining what he did, etc.

vp11: if he can't it goes automatically to the general fund

rehrar: and PR those to the meta repo. I'd hope you all comment on it so there can be some consensus there.

rehrar: Something like that seems reasonable, but I would give a month.

vp11: if the guy comes back and the community really wants to get this project back, then he creates a new proposal and the "remaining amount" (that is now on general funds) can be moved again to the new ffs

rehrar: Since we have one of these meetings every two weeks, if he can't make one meeting, he's screweed

vp11: like this at least you don't have a core team member "judging" if someone "deserves" more time

cryptochangement: that's true, a month is probably better

endogenic: rehrar: it doesnt have to just happen at meetings

endogenic: the individual could ping anyone anytime

rehrar: https://getkovri.org/docs.html

rehrar: scroll to the bottom of the 'Contributing' page

rehrar: that is actually the standing way things are resolved (in theory)

rehrar: (i.e. it has not yet been superseded as far as I know)

erciccione_[m]: vp11: i don't like that at all, the community put the money, the community should decide, not the core team.

vp11: that's exactly the goal

rehrar: erciccione_[m]: that's what he's saying :)

endogenic: erciccione_[m]: imo the core team is usually deciding based on what the community really wants

rehrar: this is true

rehrar: they have yet to go against the community as far as I have seen

erciccione_[m]: oh, sorry, i misread

rehrar: anyways, regarding the Monero Tracking (the immediate issue)

rehrar: I say General Fund

erciccione_[m]: ok i got it, maybe i'm too picky on this, but i still think a final word from the community is needed. to avoid accusation of centralization

rehrar: erciccione_[m]: the ffs is centralized, and it's pointless to pretend it's not

shillo: we need a ceo who is responsible for all decisions and can be fired

– shillo is now known as shillobear

rehrar: the core team acts as arbiters, and they can set their own rules for that arbitage process

rehrar: if I don't like it, I can make the RFS (rehrar funding system) and act as an arbiter and set my own rules

vp11: I say vp11 fund so I can quit my normal job and dedicate my life to crypto. jokes, general fund should be.

erciccione_[m]: rehrar: well, if we can decentralize it a bit, why we shouldn't?

rehrar: Monero is not centralized, but the ffs is

rehrar: it's up to the core team, not us, since it's their system

rehrar: that's what this all comes down to

vp11: remember that ffs projects expiring should be an exception. I don't see anything wrong in going through the community first (instead of directly to the core team to decide). even if takes one extra step, everyone will be happy like that.

rehrar: they're the ones putting themselves and their reputations on the line for this, not us

rehrar: and they are setting their terms. If we propose terms (via PR) and they accept them (via merging), which they would do with community consensus, I'm sure, then we're golden

endogenic: shillo what happened to our chief entertainment officer??

erciccione_[m]: yes, but the money are from the community, we shouldn't say, it's their system so it's everything up to them. That's a very bad way to deal with this imho

shillobear: endogenic he fell of a cliff and died on impact

rehrar: you have to understand the process erciccione_[m], the flow of money given via ffs is the following:

endogenic: NNOOOOO

rehrar: community --> Core Team --> individual

vp11: the core team is a representation of the community anyway, it should never have a conflict there. one could argue it's a non necessary step, but it does no harm and the community will have a chance to express themselves

vp11: how bad can that be

rehrar: not community --> individual

erciccione_[m]: vp11: +1

endogenic: vp11: i'm curious to hear that argument :P

rehrar: ultimately I agree with you both erciccione_[m] and vp11

vp11: I mean, the money goes to the general fund, Then the author has to create a new proposal, community will pitch in again, it will be approved and the previous "remaining funds" will just be moved.

rehrar: just trying to clear up some misconceptions about how the ffs currently operates

vp11: sounds like an ok process

rehrar: alright, almost out of time

rehrar: any last thoughts from anyone about anything?

erciccione_[m]: rehrar: i know how ffs works, that's not the point :)

erciccione_[m]: vp11: that's good for me

rehrar: thanks for your discussion on this by the way. It's been great. :)

rehrar: not just talking to you erciccione_[m], there will be people reading these logs later ;)

rehrar: and the public definitely has misconceptions

xmrmatterbridge: <cryptochangements> Do logs for these still get posted?

xmrmatterbridge: <cryptochangements> They used to but I haven't seen them in a while

rehrar: 1. I've asked for the website to be frozen while I finish the multilingual reimplementation

rehrar: 2. dEBRUYNE? :D

erciccione_[m]: you have to understand the process erciccione_[m], the flow of money given via ffs is the following: <-- i pointed that out because this is what you wrote

erciccione_[m]: rehrar ^

rehrar: ah, I see. Apologies then erciccione_[m].

erciccione_[m]: cryptochangements: i don't think anybody is posting those actually

xmrmatterbridge: <cryptochangements> Maybe I'll post them somewhere if somebody else doesn't do it :p

erciccione_[m]: rehrar: np :)

rehrar: you can start formatting them for submission to the website cryptochangements

rehrar: alright, end of meetig

rehrar: *meeting

rehrar: kthanksbai two weeks next meeting

erciccione_[m]: no other points for the meeting?

xmrmatterbridge: <cryptochangements> Same time?

rehrar: oh, we can keep going I guess.

xmrmatterbridge: <cryptochangements> (Sgp wouldn't have forgotten to mention the time :p)

rehrar: it's just been an hour

rehrar: as we all well know, I'm not sgp

rehrar: I can only aspire :'(

xmrmatterbridge: <cryptochangements> It's ok we <3 rehrar too

xmrmatterbridge: <michael> Defcon meeting is in 1 week in case anyone is interested.

erciccione_[m]: that's something i pointed out before, we shouldn't cut meetings just before the hour is gone. i mean, today there shouldn't be too much to talk about, but we shouldn't get use to it

rehrar: ok

rehrar: 5. Open ideas time

erciccione_[m]: sometime ago we agreed for 1,30 hours meeting if needed

rehrar: Share your ideas of how to make Monero a better community.

shillobear: play more pubg

shillobear: monero pubg tournament

erciccione_[m]: there is also my point for the localization workgroup

rehrar: I actually think the Monero community sponsoring a tournament of some kind would be cool.

vp11: "how to explain to people that monero is money and that it should be used"

erciccione_[m]: we can cut that if nobody has questions, i have not much to say actually. except i started testing pootle (the localization platform). and 21 languages of the GUI will be updated

rehrar: I remember we were trying to get pootle to work back in the day

rehrar: any luck with it?

erciccione_[m]: that was weblate. i got pootle working, but i have some dubt about the integration with git. could have some issues

erciccione_[m]: ecause if i understood correctly there will be one "pootle" user committing, and not the actual contributor

erciccione_[m]: that could create a mess about attributions

rehrar: oooh, yeah that's rough

erciccione_[m]: but i still need to test it and see if i found a workaround for that

rehrar: but it does make things easier for people who just want to translate but not learn git

rehrar: and don't care about attribution

erciccione_[m]: tht's true, but if we use it for the standard workflow, it could mess thing up

rehrar: ye

erciccione_[m]: i mean, weblate works correctly from that point of view

xmrmatterbridge: <cryptochangements> Can't we just list translators in a translator section in release notes?

erciccione_[m]: will make further tests and keep you updated

xmrmatterbridge: <cryptochangements> So we can say we <3 you without crediting the git commit

erciccione_[m]: we could cryptochangements, i mean. i could just keep a list updated, but if we can avoid it, i would prefer it

xmrmatterbridge: <cryptochangements> True

rehrar: alright, anything else?

rehrar: updates from anyone? topics to discuss?

xmrmatterbridge: <cryptochangements> I think we're good now

rehrar: alrighty

rehrar: 6. Confirm next meeting date/time

rehrar: 9th of June, 17 UTC