Commenting on a few of the applications that I have notes on. Absence shouldn’t be read as for or against . Apologies for the late feedback.
Treegen Testing Support from Valdorff
Just minor note on the presentation. I would suggest that this be setup as a single repeating bounty with the dependency being a new tree specification published by the Rocket Pool team. Can fund 1 or 2 independent implementations per published specification as desired. As a general rule, I think it’s fine for bounties to be repeating-until-revoked, especially if there is an internal rate limiter on max spend (in this case X-per-published specification.) Probably sensible to specify that it’s for each ‘major/minor’ version change as appropriate, and not revision-type changes.
Management Committee Gas Reimbursement from Shfryn
Seems reasonable, but I would prefer to see this done as part of the normal operations of the given management committee. It could be written into the appropriate RPIP that committees may reimburse their members for reasonable gas costs using their budgets.
RP Community Call Hosting on Twitter Spaces from Ken
I avoid interacting with Twitter / X and don’t have an account. Last time I tried, I wasn’t able to join these (presumably due to lack of account.) I can see why twitter is a good platform for this though, especially if you’re trying to reach more widely. Should be funded, but I wanted to record one vote for ‘different platform’.
Universal Variable Commission from @sckuzzle
Generally I think this is a good research direction, and this should be funded (though I’ve no idea if this is good value-for-money or not as is). My main concern is over the PID controller. There was a fair bit of history around PID’s in Maker to manage stability, and Reflexer eventually implemented one. I am very unsure that a PID can work effectively, at scale, in a hostile environment in which its logic is known. They are very hard to test in-situ without significant risk, and you cannot be sure that tests out-of-situ are representative, because there is no true value at stake.
Denver Lift Off from @Ken
I have something of a unique perspective on in person events, because I don’t attend them due to pseudonymity, but was involved with Maker where they were run frequently. In general, I think they are worthwhile in moderation, and this should be funded. My issue with them at Maker was that they rarely led to concrete outcomes. Participants would discuss ideas and direction, even in some case agree on things widely, but no apparent action would follow.
On that basis, I’d recommend that the deliverables include the following, to be completed after the event:
- Written summary of major discussion points, general opinions present, important takeaways, etc. This allows those not present to get the gist without needing to watch hours of recordings.
- A list of action items generated during the event, along with named parties that have volunteered to see them complete. This can be as small as ‘x will write up a bounty proposal’, or as large as ‘x will coordinate a multi-disciplinary effort to achieve y’.