The Management-Team, elected by ANT Holders, creates Milestones & Issues via Github out of accepted feature requests and bug reports and attach bounties to each github issue.
Teams/developers apply for open bounties via Github. If the bounty is not assigned the Management-Team assigns the issue to teams/developers via github.
Once a team/dev is finished with an issue s/he makes a pull request. The Management-Team checks the pull requests, merges and refactor code.
team/devs get paid the bounty for their merged issue
all the Milestones/issues are transparent on Github so everyone can see how much was spent for each issue and who got paid.
requests.aragon.org shows you all the feature request from all the different stakeholders (github feature requests) and also let you create a new github feature request and upvote submitted feature requests
bugs.aragon.org shows you all the reprted bugs (github bug reports) and also let you create a new github bug report and upvote already reported bugs
in this way we can be much faster because the proposals are smaller and if you make a vision proposal there is only a commitment to this vision nothing else. then you can create milestone proposals out of that and when accepted you check how you can get to those milestones (issue proposals) once you did that you can create bounties out of the issues and anyone can apply (free market for bounties/ bounty marketplace where the price for the bounty gets set by the market)
i was thinking about a conviction voting mechanism. so there are different vision proposals all the time running and refined and users stake ANT. the vision is ongoing never ending but changing and people can change their vote every time. its like a blockchain where the users build on the vision with the most support. so then they can create milestones for this issue. again conviction voting on milestones. the users see then which milestones are most liked and can create issue proposals based on that. once a issue proposal gets accepted a bounty is created. so the vision and milestone conviction voting proposals are running all the time indefinite but the issue proposal have a 3-5 day voting period. so it should take max 1 week from making a issue proposal and the management team creating a bounty out of that.
ah, lol, well I totally support this idea. Like your title suggest, it makes progression and direction very clear at a quick glance.
I think having a community calendar would be a huge addition. Especially if it could be integrated into this forum or discord like your example. Expanding on it: maybe it could also show upcoming/ongoing votes and meetings, linking events with the roadmap.
perhaps if you login with metamask into aragon.org you see your aragon profile with your calendar (upcoming events of all the dao tokens you hold) + guardian dashboard (your roles in different daos + related stats)
Can I get some clarification on what is being managed here? Is it just the juncture of between roadmap and teams or the entire process - bugs features proposals road map teams?
Is there a CTA? Are you wanting people to vote or just wanting community feedback on the idea?
Scope of the project will determine the level of detail required but at this point, I’d be interested to have more information on
-Size of the management team
Team selection process
Who is setting the bounties?
how this team would work with the Sub DAO established by the network Charter
To reward and incentivize coding contributions from the open source community
The Github Security Lab runs something similar. Essentially, as reports / bugs / vulnerabilities / features are found/requested, some tasks for those projects can be can be “outsourced” to community members. These tasks would be all sorts of things, but most importantly they range in skill levels. A well developed bounty program could speed up projects, as well as actually provide a realistic road map.
The GitHub Security Lab and CodeQL teams consider the following factors when setting a bounty award:
The complexity of the vulnerabilities
The severity of the vulnerabilities
The prevalence of the vulnerabilities: the number of impacted users and systems
The performance and reliability of the query: its false positive rate
The documentation of the query
Whether you produce a blog post / write-up about the vulnerabilities and query to help share your experience
I believe this could be done through a proposal - possibly with the help of the Tech Sub DAO? Maybe a detailed proposal providing a specific amount that this Management Team would be entrusted to attach to bounties, etc…
i imagine it to be the entire process - bugs go directly to the management team, which checks which team is responsible for the bug and forward the bug to them with a bounty attached to it. if there is a feature request then users can upvote them and the most voted feature becomes a proposal and if pass the management team creates milestones/issues/bounties out of it and teams can apply for it. the whole workflow gets recorded on GitHub and periodically backed up on ipfs.
What is CTA? it’s not a proposal just an idea to work it out and get feedback.
anyone can apply for a bounty. if the issue is not assigned the team/dev can have the bounty. perhaps we can use https://erasurebay.org/ so if teams/devs apply they need to stake DAI and if they don’t perform they get slashed. but for the beginning we can try without it.
this is the role of the management team. they think how long it would take them to develop it. so they think about the steps and attach to each step of the issue a time estimation with a level (0-5 easy to hard) then they calculate all the h together and multiply it by the average wage for a dev with the required skill level. This is then the bounty. if other devs have objectives they can comment under the github issue/bounty. everyone can shape the bounty with arguments.
it will be a role of the sub-DAO
The goal is to make the developing process of the aragon netwrok easy to participate (everyone can apply for a bounty), bottom-up creation (feature requests from users) and transparent (everything documented on github and all payments via the dao). I imagine that all the development of the aragon network will be through this bounty system.
Cool & agree, certainly there will always be demand for engineering dev support on a project of this scale. And love that you share the example to from GitHub Security Lab. Do you think that GitHib bounties system can be applied as is?
CTA Call to Action: which you explained is feedbacl
I suspect it would help if the SUB DAO can develop/provide templates for community proposals? do you think this would be helpful just as a general idea?
I should have specified, the selection process for the Management Team
quick side note: Aragon Network Bug Bounty - I’m not sure what happened to this, is this program / funds for this no longer available?
I’m not sure about the ANT+ /bonding curve. It seems like it would be pretty straight forward to have the Tech SubDAO delegate / manage the program through Github/proposals and votes. I really like the idea of having a template. Also, I think the gamifying the bounties is a super neat idea from GitHub Security | GitHub Bug Bounty
I totally oversee the gamification of it just saw the rules on my phone haha. They just do it for bugs but i want that everyone who is participating in the aragon network has a score. so even aragon team members participate in the game no one operates outside of it. its a fair levelled playing field
In there they have an article/interview from 1Hive that I believe dives deeper into this idea of using bonding curves to “bubble up” more promising projects/ideas.
For applying for funds. With the new Tech Committee SubDAO, I imagine that they could manage smaller amounts like you said, “$1k-$10k” worth in ANT and could process them at a faster pace then the Main-DAO.
Right, like your saying, I think this could be incorporated into all kinds of community work. The benefits would be, I guess intrinsic, say for example, an election of committee members - the community could look through leaderboards or your “Aragon Score” - especially, if they aren’t familiar with the candidates.
I think bonding curves are nice because you can link a sub-project to a main project. in the case of Aragon+ the bonding curve is linked to retroactive funding mechanisms (When a milestone is done AN-DAO will retro fund ANT into the ANT/ANT+ bonding curve) . In this way people who donated early get more money back compared to people who donated later. It also incentivise users to hold the tokens and to participate early on. Without a bonding curve the AN-DAO would just retro fund the money into the dao and every user who donated x% get x% of the retro fund back. with a bonding curve you create different incentives which i think are exiting. It’s just the first idea nothing set in stone perhaps we come up with nicer methods or combine different things.
yes thats nice! the aragon score is a guardian score cause every dao can implement the guardian system and every user will have different levels in each dao based on the participation Guardian Network
For context, the tech committee is not intended as a fund management entity. Their responsibility is QA.
We could contemplate a proposal made to the main DAO to create other sub-DAOs for this specific purpose. Or simply ask the Executive sub-DAO for funds (although that will compete with other priorities for the Operations vault (exec DAO treasury))
