0x6a024f52…80f4sent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#22,495,902·view on Etherscan
lots to unpack here
@davinoyesigye, eusoujp, monografia
> ~ I disagree with the retro comp
I get that most of the work I did is made of invisible, technical chores, but I tried to make it more tangible in [this propdate](https://updates.wtf/update/773-2)
I've also been coordinating with past maintainers, with DUNA & surveying providers to keep our base infra alive.
I did make it clear on [prop 773](https://www.nouns.camp/proposals/773) that:
> I might propose for retroactive compensation some time in the future, depending on how much of my time I'm putting into this.
I am putting a lot of time into this. I've been working full-time on it for the past two weeks.
I could have asked for USDC, but I asked for a bigger stake in the governance. Is that Noun really unjustified?
@monografia, @otterfodder, @lilfrog, @eusoujp, @nataliecrue, @gramajo
> ~i'd support a version of this proposal inclined to fully develop a bounty program
That's the plan, but a bounty program doesn't make sense without the groundwork of contribution guidelines, processes and platforms that are friendly to external contributors. That's why it's packaged up with fixing the monorepo and setting up a knowledge base; otherwise people wouldn't know where to start when fulfilling the bounties.
@otterfodder, @nataliecrue
> ~ Why not sunset Nouns.wtf
This has been considered in [this topic](https://www.nouns.camp/topics/%5Bidea%5D-add-all-approved-nouns-clients-to-nouns.wtf-39a7ea92f59d74a950e4a08990519ee44ef3abc0), but:
- we still get a lot of inbound traffic (check the plausible analytics link in that topic) from all historical usage of that domain
- lots of people still care about that page and want to see it live on
- we need a canonical resource that belongs to the DAO to ensure we'll always hold the keys to fix it and keep it up. most of the old Nouns resources managed by other teams and individuals have faded away (e.g. nouns.camp)
@otterfodder, @fattybuthappy
> build on to the developer resources of nouns.world
.world was not designed to be a knowledge base. it's an onboarding resource meant to get people (mainly outsiders) excited about Nouns.
It does great at that, but it's not great for documentation, resources and community contributions
I'm building something that's thought out from the ground up to:
- be open to contributions from the community
- have structured, searchable content
I've reached out to Mike on this topic and being a resource/docs repo is really not the focus of .world, and he agreed it should be offloaded to another platform.
@fattybuthappy
> Noundry, Nouns World, and Noundation already provide all the resources needed
[Noundry](https://assets.noundry.wtf/nouns) is a stopgap, but it still needs a lot of work, and I'd rather do that work in the Nouns monorepo rather than doing it as my own thing
noundation.wtf is expired. The site is abandoned
@fattybuthappy, @bixbite
> The only updates the main site needs is to add link out to the active clients that we have already funded millions of dollars to have the community interact with.
We've [been through this](https://www.nouns.camp/topics/%5Bidea%5D-add-all-approved-nouns-clients-to-nouns.wtf-39a7ea92f59d74a950e4a08990519ee44ef3abc0), but
as it is always with Nouns, it's very challenging to reach consensus around what should be done. What usually ends up happening is that we can't decide what to do and nothing is done...that's why our canonical page is broken, the docs severely outdated and misleading.
We've got to figure out how to collectively decide and get unstuck. I'm not sure exactly how that should work, but I know **we must learn to make compromises**.
We each have our own opinion about what should be done with .wtf...but we've got to acknowledge that reaching a consensus involving hundreds of stakeholders is IMPOSSIBLE.
So this is how I propose we make those calls by **consent** instead of consensus:
does the proposed solution actively causes irreparable damage, or is it safe to try?
If it does not cause irreparable damage, let's try it out and iterate on it until it's good enough for most. The alternative is not fixing the problems that are actively causing damage.
I'm not sure exactly what form or shape nouns.wtf will take in the future, but we must keep the discussion open and address and fix specific problems instead of trying to incorporate everyone's visions because that can't be done. Let's focus more on concrete problems and how to solve them because by framing these discussions around hypotheticals and what could be, we can't move the needle.
@fattybuthappy:
> when I tried creating a Nouns Wikipedia, the link was flagged as shilling
That's a different problem, one with Wikipedia's anti-crypto admin cabal 😂 We should eventually try that again, though
@bixbite
> Nouns is an open source project which has 36 contributors to the monorepo, we just needed someone active to be able to merge the PRs from people wanting to contribute
It also had >100 stale issues + PRs. Open source stewardship is not only about pressing a button and merging a PR, or else it would have been done already.
Software is a perishable good...it rots away in the absence of continuous upkeep.
Lots of things had stopped working in that monorepo because old dependencies were discontinued. It's also an extremely steep learning curve for anyone wanting to contribute because it uses outdated frameworks and libs nobody is familiar with these days.
The work is there, and it needs to be done. I'm willing to do it, nekofar is willing to do it, and we want to encourage more developers to join in...that's why we're cleaning the house and making it more inviting.
@bixbite, @rubinovitz
> I also find it odd that when you go to the NounsDAO GitHub page you are the only person linked or visible https://github.com/nounsDAO... I thought you were supposed to receive access to one specific repo, so why are you the only dev linked from the main profile?
Being displayed on that page is an opt-in for contributors, and I want to wear that badge. The other members of the Nouns org opted not to.
I want people to reach out to me if they wish to discuss the infra, codebase or anything, so that's why I made it visible. I hope to be a contact point for this part of the DAO because we had none, and when there's no one to contact, people have no recourse and problems don't get fixed.
I concede that getting me added to the monorepo was not on [prop 773](https://www.nouns.camp/proposals/773), but that was an oversight from me. I need that access to do the work (deleting old, abandoned repos, creating new ones).
Index noticed that when giving me monorepo access and courteously also gave me org access. I agree that it's not to the letter of my prop and what people voted on, and I believe people voted for me to steward the whole Nouns codebase which is abandoned.
I could put up a new prop requesting org access, but honestly...that's a technicality. Is this really that big of a deal?
Why do you find it odd? I think we should have more devs up there.
@rubinovitz
> Anyway, wanted to say that because I don’t think it was intentional, but it would be cool to list all contributors without having to pay for them all on an enterprise plan. Unsure if that’s possible though.
It was intentional. We can and should list all contributors, and it doesn't require an enterprise plan, it's just opt-in (they have to join the org, so requires displaying a bit of commitment ofc, but doesn't require paid seats)
@bixbite
> It also feels a little disingenuous that you asked for access to the Nouns GitHub repo then a month later come with a proposal [...] created out of thin air and pushed through to give you a job / task within Nouns....
I've been discussing this in onchain topics, talking about it on Lil Nouns Discord voice, reaching out to people in DMs. How is this out of thin air?
And also, what's wrong with me trying to claim work that needs to be done in Nouns? Is it because I'm asking to be paid (a Jr. developer salary) for it?
Stop trying to find hidden motives and throwing shade on people who you disagree with, Bix. That's a bad look.
Attack my ideas, not my character.
@memevalue
> Nouns Center has probably had 1 visitor in the past year, so I struggle to see the value on keeping it going vs building from scratch
the original idea was just to get rid of the outdated content and update it to get it fixed asap, but that proved more challenging than anticipated bc some important bits are sourced from Notion docs and we don't have access to update those anymore. Since I has already started working on it, I took the path of least resistance.
Don't fixate on this aspect, though...the layout can be completely reworked. tbh little of the original code will be left when I'm done adapting it for the CMS, so it's only a bit short of building from scratch
@memevalue, @lilfrog, @eusoujp, @nataliecrue
> ~ the scope of said work needs to be heavily detailed
I keep hearing that we don't want to inherit corporate culture and do things the old way. So why do we keep trying to do waterfall planning?
This goes back to my previous point: we can never reach consensus as a DAO...so let's aim for consent.
.wtf is broken, .center is outdated and causes harm bc it's misleading, I want to fix them.
We all have our ideas about how that should be done. I tried eliciting that discussion on the topics I've created, but it died out.
If we keep waiting for the ideal prop before we fix what's broken, things will remain broken. This is what led us to this situation.
I'm proposing we do something different this time: the details are not cast in stone. My compensation is streamed, and you can fire me if you don't think I'm adding value to the DAO.
I'll remain available for feedback. I'll try to work in public as much as possible.
I can't commit to delivering exactly what everyone wants. Scroll back to the comments on this prop, and you'll find a ton of feedback pointing towards diametrically opposite directions. I believe getting the work done is the most important thing, and substance matters more than form.
I do commit to integrating all objections to decisions that actively bring harm to the DAO. But I will have to improvise and make judgment calls, and I ask you for a bit of trust while I'm at it.
Let me try before you shut me down. Nobody else is doing it, so let me try.
We have to change our work culture to be able to accomplish things together. There's a ton of value to be unlocked by compromising and building something together, rather than building several different silos and neglecting our shared spaces.
@memevalue
> You also told me that you aim to change the culture around contributing, but prop doesn't mention the word "culture"
Fair criticism. skill issue
@memevalue
> I think if you were part of a team ("working group"), you could execute something greater, quicker
I tried rallying people around this, but only nekofar was willing, and he has limited availability for the reasons stated previously. The process needs to be bootstrapped, and that's what I'm trying to do with this prop.
---
appreciate all the engagement
sorry for the big wall of text