RPIPs Portal Revamp + Bugfixing
Who is the proposed retrospective award recipient?
GovAlpha (@LongForWisdom, @Prose11, @Patrick_J)
What specific project or work is the retrospective award in recognition of? Please detail what the project or work entailed and the duration over which it took place.
This retro covers both RPIPs portal bugfixing work and the UX improvements to the RPIPs portal’s layout.
This work took place over ~ 21 days in September, though total work amounted to about 7 days.
- 1 day - Familiarization with Ruby and Jekyll. Getting the portal to build and run locally.
- 1 days - Initial bugfixes.
- 5 days - Revamp work.
- (over period) - Admin work like gathering feedback, making forum posts, fixing up PR’s according to comments, etc.
The general objectives were to make the RPIPs portal appear more ‘professional’ via fixing minor bugs, and more accessible for the most common use-cases, estimated as:
- “I want to understand the ‘current’ governance proposals.”
- “I want to understand how the Rocket Pool DAOs work.”
A summary of the revamp work can be found in this [forum post].
The accepted revamp PR can be found [here].
The accepted bugfix PR can be found [here].
I’m able to set up my staging branch to display the portal as it was before any of these changes were committed. However, I use the staging branch semi-regularly for testing things, so I would rather not leave it like that for more than a couple of days. If you can give me 24 hours notice, I can set it up for members of the committee to review.
Are the subjects of this award entirely open source (MIT, GPL, Apache, CC BY license or similar)? If not, which parts will not be, why, and under what license will they be published?
Yes.
Benefits - enter N/A where appropriate
| Group | Benefits |
|---|---|
| Potential rETH holders | May slightly improve accessibility of information of Rocket Pools governance structure, allowing them to make a more informed decision. |
| rETH holders | N/A |
| Potential NOs | May slightly improve accessibility of information of Rocket Pools governance structure, allowing them to make a more informed decision. |
| NOs | The changes slightly reduce the friction for NO’s wanting to find relevant information when contributing to Rocket Pool governance via discussion or vote. |
| Community | The changes slightly reduce the friction for community members wanting to find relevant information when contributing to Rocket Pool governance via discussion or vote. |
| RPL holders | N/A |
Payment
How much USD $ is the applicant requesting be awarded to the recipient?
$5000 in some stable token (USDC / LUSD / DAI).
General guidelines on how numbers would be received on our side:
- Below $3,000: Look to scale down time commitment to Rocket Pool.
- Below $5,000: Unhappiness.
- Above $5,000: Happiness.
- Above $8,000: Excited. Look to scale up time commitment to Rocket Pool.
Summary of Arguments For Larger Amounts
- It will encourage us to continue to see Rocket Pool as a worthwhile place to invest time.
- It will encourage us to actively maintain and improve the RPIPs portal.
- An entity that can self-direct and implement governance-related technical changes is cheaper (financially, organizationally, etc) than these skills split across multiple entities.
- Large rewards for governance-support work may encourage more of this work being taken up by the wider community.
- We have made an effort to engage meaningfully with the Rocket Pool community prior to requesting financial compensation. Rewarding this approach may encourage others to follow a similar route, hopefully to the benefit of the Rocket Pool DAOs.
- We have made an effort to clearly communicate completed work to the community. Rewarding this approach may encourage others to engage in the same way.
- Rewarding maintenance of, and engagement with existing tools, functionality and dashboards may encourage an iteration mindset over a replacement mindset.
- Significant rewards through the retro framework may encourage higher relative use of retros as opposed to the grants.
Summary of Arguments For Smaller Amounts
- The positive impact of this work is difficult to measure or prove.
- The actual changes required a relatively small time commitment in relation to the requested amount.
- It’s difficult to argue the changes are transformational. The same information is being presented on the portal, just in a more accessible way.
- Github exists and can also display the RPIPs in a functional way, meaning the portal can be considered pointless duplication of existing functionality.
Conflict of Interest
Does the person or persons requesting the retrospective award have any conflicts of interest to disclose? (Please disclose here if you are a member of the GMC or if you have nominated a member of the GMC for this retrospective award).
No conflicts of interest.