Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

For March 2019 #259

Closed
arunasurya opened this issue Mar 31, 2019 · 21 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
7 participants
@arunasurya
Copy link

commented Mar 31, 2019

Summary

  • BSQ requested: 3500
  • BSQ address: B1PFD3uscJqFQfLNAS6bWQtr1PUahrWNvC7

Contributions delivered

Blog Project: 2500BSQ

Collaborators:

  • @m52go: his involvement was essential in the project and included editing, publishing posts, providing input for improving the blog writing process and ensuring the consistent quality of the posts.

Next Steps:

  • Redefine and assign the roles (currently unofficial) to Editor (primary) for myself and Editor (secondary) for @m52go to reflect the general role structure at Bisq and to ensure an uninterrupted workflow.
  • Continue improving the blog writing process, attracting new talent and collaborating with the writers to establish a thriving writer community.

### Bisq Academy: 3500BSQ
edit: Not requesting this amount for this month.

This began as a personal project, but at the encouragement of @ManfredKarrer, I am sharing this work with the Bisq community. Currently hosted at https://github.com/arunasurya/academy.bisq.network. The aim of the academy is to share my perspective on technology (with the focus on Bisq and Bitcoin) to the people with non-technical backgrounds. The price for these articles reflects several months of research and learning, writing, maintenance and future updates to reflect changes in Bisq, improved understanding, etc, especially for the Bisq DAO articles.

The following articles are complete and ready for view:

Collaborators:

  • @eyalron33: reviewed and suggested corrections to all three Bisq DAO articles.
  • @Wimking1987: created the image for the Bisq P2P Network article.

Next Steps:

  • Continue work on the academy, with @eyalron33 acting as a technical advisor and @Wimking1987 acting as the main designer.

Roles performed

Transifex Admin: 1000BSQ

In my first month as the Transifex admin, I focused on learning about Transifex and reaching out to the translators.

Collaborators:

  • @y3v63n: he was the one who first suggested and created the base list for the glossary.
  • @ripcurlx: he updated the translations for the new release and provided guidance in my new role.

Next Steps:

  • Improve the Transifex Project doc.
  • Continue with the Glossary initiative.
  • Continue on building an active translator community.
@ManfredKarrer

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Apr 1, 2019

Is the Bisq Academy work already visible to Bisq users? Is it promoted? How many users have read it?
It is a bit hard to me to evaluate if the added value to Bisq is worth 3500 BSQ.

I doubt that many users if any have read / benefited from it. So I would suggest to postpone that until it has more clearly added value to Bisq, otherwise we create a wrong culture how we compensate for work on Bisq.

@arunasurya

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Apr 1, 2019

I think there has been miscommunication. I thought that @ManfredKarrer believed the Academy could add value to the Bisq community. I assumed that trying to get it to a high and consistent quality level, consulting with more experienced contributors and working with designers, were part of this long-term effort that could be compensated. I have done work on my part, and publicizing it is not my strength neither my role. How do you define value? Have all the current creative projects approved of and compensated by Bisq reached out to a broad audience? I have decided to give them this value because this is a long-term project that would require constant honing and updates to stay correct. Other people who have read it found this information useful.

@ManfredKarrer

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Apr 1, 2019

@arunasurya Yes I value your work on that and I think it will be a valuable contribution to Bisq. I just don't see that has materialized at the current stage as I have not seen it included anywhere (maybe I missed that as I did not follow it closely) or promoted. Maybe we have a phone call to avoid misunderstandings, I am not so good with writing....

@eyalron33 eyalron33 referenced this issue Apr 1, 2019

Closed

For March 2019 #255

@arunasurya

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Apr 2, 2019

Thought I should provide more stats for the blog posts on Medium. The publication started in late February, and the first post was published on Feb 25, 2019 :

Medium views_March 2019
Medium minutes read_March 2019
Medium visitors_March 2019

@m52go

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Apr 2, 2019

Thanks Aruna. We should determine better metrics when we finalize the role of the blog admin (traffic metrics just incentivize click-bait, and impact is cumulative over time), but for the sake of completeness, here are some more numbers for blog posts on the bisq.network website.

Some of the posts that don't have high numbers right now were just recently posted.

Screenshot from 2019-04-02 17-01-16

@arunasurya

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Apr 3, 2019

Upon more careful consideration, I would like to state a few things, both in regard to my compensation request for March 2019 and the current discussion on compensating our bloggers.

First, regarding the Bisq academy, I agree with @ManfredKarrer that it is hard to assess its value now, so I will evaluate the project, and if I still find it promising and worth working on, I will disseminate the academy to a wider audience, determine its value via concrete metrics and then ask for compensation that reflects the value added. I apologize for this misunderstanding and for a strong reaction to comments by @ManfredKarrer. Also, my apologies to @eyalron33 and @Wimking1987 for involving them in a project that was not official. I enjoyed working with them both, and it was never my intention to mislead them.

Second, I defined the unofficial role of the blog project lead because I wanted to fulfill as quickly as possible the task (that was given to me by @ManfredKarrer) of producing high quality weekly blog posts. It has been a little more than a month since the start of the project, and, as you can see from the metrics above, it has attracted some attention, although maybe not as much as would have been desirable to justify the cost of the project. I have defined the blog writing process as well as I could, and, of course, I made mistakes on the way such as not defining the amount of compensation request because I thought that the writers were best suited to assess the value of their own work. I stand by the quality of all the posts that have been published, and I believe that all the writers of the published posts deserve to be compensated. They have fulfilled their part of the agreement stated in the unofficial Bisq blog project doc.

Considering all this, I think we should pause with the blog post publication for the remainder of this week while the Blog Admin role and the compensation request amount are being defined. This should be no problem since there is nobody right now on the schedule. My apologies to John Forsyth (whose post was scheduled for this week) for suggesting the wrong topic (How to submit a compensation request and what to expect) and having him do a lot of work. As someone who has assigned herself the unofficial role of the project lead, I want to make sure that all the writers receive up-to-date information, have good experience working on this project and don't feel that they are being mistreated.

Since @ManfredKarrer suggested using the number of views as the metric for evaluating compensation requests for blog posts, we need to make sure that all posts are promoted equally and that there is no conflict of interest. Social media is not my strength, so I will leave this to @m52go and the other contributors who are more experienced and have access to various platforms such as Twitter, Reddit, etc., to do that. I am OK with relinquishing my role in this project if dissemination needs to be part of the new Blog admin role.

I am still getting acquainted with the decentralized aspect and transparency of Bisq, so I am making mistakes but I am learning and hope to make fewer mistakes in the future.

@eyalron33

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Apr 3, 2019

I did not feel mislead, so there is no need to apologize to me. Things regarding "officiality" will be come clearer with time using the DAO.

@Wimking1987

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Apr 3, 2019

@ManfredKarrer

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Apr 3, 2019

@arunasurya No need for aplogize. I was for sure big part of the confusion due lack of thinking through the processes.... We all are learning how to work in such a model and its not always easy.
I would prefer to not stop the efforts as all communication efforts are valueable in regards to the DAO launch. I will try to have a call with you to see whats the most practical short term approach is...

@arunasurya

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Apr 3, 2019

OK, I will write the post this week, and we will continue with the weekly publications.

@ManfredKarrer

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Apr 3, 2019

@Wimking1987 Sorry also to my reaction on your request. I have seen later it was used in the blog post and on Medium. We did not had set up clear guidelines for design contributions and its an open discussion how to deal exactly with it. My current opinion is that all on the webpage (including blog posts) should match @pedromvpg 's design style. At outside areas like Medium I think we can be more tolerant but might be good as well to stick with @pedromvpg 's design style. Design does not work well with design by commitee so we take the approach that @pedromvpg is our design lead and "dictates" the decisions here. This is in contradiction to all other areas in the Bisq DAO but as said doeing design based on democratic approaches fails IMO (and others).

We need to distinguish between "official" Bisq resources like Twitter, Subreddit,... and pure contributor operated one's (like Telegram). Basically we want to reduce the "official" ones and maybe dissolve all over time (like Bitcoin does not have a Twitter account or any other official representation). But for building up a clear brand and reaching out efficiently a more controlled approach helps IMO. So I think it will be a slow transition process.... But all up for discussion, just my 5 cents...

@eyalron33

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Apr 3, 2019

Bitcoin does not have a DAO, so it cannot have a Twitter account. Bisq does have a DAO. I think that organization official accounts are useful, and we luckly developed a toolallowing us to have one? Why not to use it?

@ManfredKarrer

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Apr 3, 2019

I see it more as a compromise as we need to deal with some centralized infrastructure like the GH account. The more "Bitcoiny" we get the better IMO, but yes its useful and atm I think we should focus on efficienty. That Bitcoin Subreddit is not official (even if they would have the structure to do it) is good as it avoids a lot of problems. The more local (driven independently by contributors) the things are the better... But of course it has its downsides as we saw on the Bitcoin side with Roger Vers Bitcoin.com webpage which was misleading/scamming newcomers.

@eyalron33

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Apr 3, 2019

The DAO is gonna be officially the Bisq community, No way around that, Manfred:-)

As the DAO is the official community, it allows you to define official community assets. I see only cons of not using it (Bitcoin.com) but no pros, besides some romanticism.

Would the Bitcoin subreddit be worse for being official? No, it would identical to how it is now, with some extra insurace that its operators cannot hijack it.

"Official community assets" are not the opposite of "driven independently by contributors". They are more a formalization of the sentence "accepted by the community". Any contributor can began their own Bisq activities. Once it gains popularity they may get a community official stamp for doing that.

Recently there was a "scandal" around the Israeli Facebook Bitcoin group, where most discussions in Hebrew are taken place (along with one Telegram group). The operator abused the trust, and the community had to open another group, which led to lots of confusion. Such things can be avoided by the DAO.

@sqrrm

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Apr 3, 2019

It's perhaps not the best place for a debate about these things, in a compensation request, sorry @arunasurya .

@eyalron33 While the DAO is the community at this point it's also possible to fork the DAO and it has to be possible to do as a countermeasure to certain threats. If that happens and some of the contributors that manage these resources go with the fork you will still have the same problem. Since the resources (twitter, domains, youtube, ...) and the DAO are not tied to the same system I think it's unavoidable.

@eyalron33

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Apr 3, 2019

@sqrrm By "officially managing resources" I mean by that manage have a bond in the DAO.

I'm not so clear what does "to fork the DAO" means (at least in the technical implementation we created). Do you mean something like making a new competing DAO?

When people with bonded roles switch a DAO, they lose their bond in the DAO they left. They may decide to do that because the compensation for switching will be bigger than the bond they lose. However, at least it will be obvious that the asset they maintained in the old DAO is no longer considered official by the community.

I'm thinking since a long time to make services for DAOs (but didn't find the time for it yet). Such services would "read" the DAO records to know who is allowed to access them. Would this solve the problem you describe?

@eyalron33

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Apr 3, 2019

@arunasurya @sqrrm @ManfredKarrer maybe it's really better to change this discussions to another place. Where would be good for that?:-)

@sqrrm

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Apr 4, 2019

@eyalron33 What I mean by forking the DAO is that the community splits in two fairly equal parts. The technical implementation of the DAO is mainly a way to manage the social aspect, where the social aspect is where the real power and value lies. With a fork the new community could keep most of the the DAO bonds and whatever they want by modifying the code to their liking.

If you then want to check which DAO is the right one you still have to decide which community or network is the one you care about.

I think the DAO implementation in code will help a lot in preventing a fork though. The fact that there is codified governance should help in avoiding and major rifts within the community. But I think the threat of splitting the community has to be there as an incentive for the community to not manage the DAO in a bad way.

@arunasurya

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Apr 4, 2019

I thought more about it, and I realize now that I got caught up in my projects, and for a moment forgot about the main reason we are here, which is Bisq and its users:). I think we need to define value to Bisq better. For my future contributions, I will keep in mind that Bisq is efficient, lean and resilient, and direct my work accordingly. I don't have a better idea of where to have the discussion. Perhaps, go back to the issue @ManfredKarrer raised?

@eyalron33

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Apr 4, 2019

@sqrrm I don't understand the phrase "splits in two fairly equal parts".

The case of splitting into exactly equal parts can be ignored as it is not realistic. For any other scenario, one part must be bigger than the other (voting-power wise), hence this is the "right DAO" and can be verified check using the system we created.

The bigger part then has no problem.

The smaller part can choose to create a new DAO of its own with a new genesis block and/or new consensus rules. Then they have the job of convincing people to switch the Bisq version, to one that follows their new DAO.

I still think that using the word "fork" is confusing here. Is it more similar to blockchain forks, or to creating a new rival DAO, hoping users will switch to it?

Maybe I didn't understand what you mean though:-)

@ripcurlx

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Apr 6, 2019

Closing as complete, see #243 (comment).

@ripcurlx ripcurlx closed this Apr 6, 2019

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.