홈 탐색 도움말
가입하기 로그인
Operations
/
storagesize-bot
2
0
포크 0
파일 이슈 0 풀 리퀘스트 0 위키
트리: d1ad22d025
브랜치 태그
storagesize-...
/
council-reports
/
archived-reports
/
constantinople-testnet
/
Council Round #8 - 12-06-2020 - Council Report.md

Council Round #8 - 12-06-2020 - Council Report.md 6.1 KB
히스토리 Raw

Council Performance Review and Minutes

1 - Basic Information

Council #8 blocks: 1,139,611‬-1,240,411‬ (second council) The council is expected to produce reports during each round and provide feedback in the form of workflow, challenges, thinking and performance.

Usernames referenced are Joystream usernames.

2 - Minutes

2.1 - Proposals Created

2.2 - Github Issues Created

2.3 - Community Repo Pull Requests

2.4 - Select Forum Activity

2.5 - Select events

  • Council mint depleted
    • Notified Jsgenesis
    • Participants: @tomato

3 - Review

3.1 - Workflow

@fierydev Firstly, voting is not just easy, but quite pleasant. No issues in the way/method of voting.

@tomato Most of the proposals were fairly straight forward, except the community wishlist which requires the discussion system before being added.

3.2 - Challenges & Thinking

@fierydev The only major issue in the above mentioned proposals was for the runtime upgrades, as you are already aware of the lag/loading issue. It can get as bad as I couldn't vote for 15 minutes, had to give up and voted some hours later. The only other minor improvement would be maybe a post for every proposal made with some sort of description so Council can make more of an informed choice. A good example would be Proposal #15 to fire StorageProvider, I didn't know why we were firing them, had to confirm on telegram before I could vote. (This might be a one time issue I faced as it was my first term and I wasn't aware of the details - If anyone else faced same issue, please corroborate or confirm)

@freakstatic_council This round was a bit about getting the information for the KPI reports of the previous rounds and for the curator lead prepare things for the curators to work. We didn't tried the new proposal discussion system which was added this round.

@tomato I think one of the issues we're having is a lack of participation by some council members, in order for people to vote for council members they have faith in, we need to increase engagement. We might be able to improve on this by attributing contributions on this report with the author's name, this would show people who is contributing. I also think there is a lack of people using the spending proposal, we should be aiming to have more spending proposals and using the council's ability to fund things to drive user engagement on the platform. There are several things that the council could fund, but its a chicken and egg problem, because spending proposals come when someone wants to contribute, but we need to have better awareness of what bounties are available, and what are sensible amounts for bounties. The UI/UX of the council page is very hard to understand, there are already improvements in the pipeline, but at the moment it creates some challenge in understanding the status of things.

3.3 - Performance

@tomato Overall council members voted on proposals appropriately, but the level of engagement can be improved upon. The proposal discussion system will launch soon, so we will be able to see if that tool increases the level of participation. There is a big difficulty in accessing information from the blockchain, and the tools required to get this information in easier formats are time consuming to create and manage. I would expect that once more tools become available (like reports) the council will be able to work better. One area the council is lacking in, is effectively using the funds it controls (meaning any funds that are added to the dollar backing of the platform after you pay for all the roles). This requires having more users on the platform as well, but eventually we should be aiming to use some of these funds to improve resources, tools and documentation for things that aren't covered by Jsgenesis.