Technical duties in the Ubiquity DAO

[sergfeldman]

Bounty preparation

Bounty preparation includes:

1. Define and write to the GitHub issue the Acceptance Criteria for the bounty
2. Write a technical description useful for the implementation of the issue
3. If required, perform the technical research before the issue is offered to a bounty hunter
4. Provide an estimate of the time required for the implementation and a preliminary estimate of the bounty budget
5. Other actions according to the good practices on the bounty preparation (ie participate in the estimation of potential profit, put recommendations to the bounty hunter, etc)

PRs review

PR review includes:

1. Test that implemented in the PR functionality satisfies the Acceptance Criteria for this issue
2. Check the security of changes in the PR
3. Check the PR meets the practices adopted in the team (dependences, code style, etc)
4. Write questions and feedback comments in the PR to the bounty hunter
5. Help the bounty hunter to solve merge conflicts, or solve them himself, and approve the merge of the PR to Master
6. Other actions according to the best practices on the PR review (ie recommend tools to the bounty hunter, etc)

Decision on the unit tests - proposals are welcome

Payment system for these duties

Proposals are welcome

Next steps:

1. Review the description of the duties, provide feedback and ideas (Liu, GGR)
2. Provide proposals for payment system for these duties (Alex, Liu, GGR, Ser)
3. Agree on the description of the duties (Alex, Liu, GGR, Ser)

4. Agree on the payment system for these duties (Alex, Liu, GGR, Ser)

[george-shammar]

Please see my feedback/suggestions below (based on the foregoing summary as well as our meeting on the subject):

For clarity and only for the purpose of my comment, I'll refer to the three bounty roles as Bounty Provider, Bounty Hunter and Bounty Reviewer.

1a. There's need to always align the overall direction of the project to a bounty before it is created. This would ensure time and effort is not wasted because every bounty would require framing the technical requirements, bounty acceptance criteria and some level of research. This time and effort should not be expended just to realize the bounty does not add the envisioned value to any part of the project. I propose a pre-issue creation stage where a potential bounty would receive a go-ahead from either Alex, Ser or anyone in such capacity who carries the responsibility of technical visioneering of the project. This stage/process does not need to be unnecessarily cumbersome or prolonged. It shouldn't take more than few minutes to say "yes" or "no" to a potential bounty once the Bounty Provider submits the title and a few lines (background) of the proposed bounty.

1b. On a best effort basis, a bounty should be created with the intention that all likely questions to be raised by a Bounty Hunter are answered by the information provided in the bounty ab-initio. However, the Bounty Provider would be the go-to person (even if they have been paid) when a Bounty Hunter requires clarifications. Without clarifications, when needed, a bounty may not be completed to requirements or not completed at all.

2. Pricing Template: I want to propose a calibrated pricing template among the three roles in order of role/task difficulty. This is my proposed formula: Bounty Provider (25%), Bounty Hunter (65%), Bounty Reviewer (10%). There may be special situations where we would need to tweak this ratio on a case-by-case basis where role/task difficulty differs from the above. This is just my suggestion and it is subject to changes. I can provide clarifications or justifications at the next meeting if need be.

3. Payment should be upon when a task (within a bounty) is deemed completed. E.g A bounty hunter and Bounty Reviewer are paid when a bounty is approved and merged. A Bounty Provider is paid when a Bounty is created according to the pre-defined standard specified above.

4. Bounty Reviewers should be people who will always act in the best interest of the project. For example, a malicious code merged into the codebase (intentionally or unintentionally) could have both reputational and financial damage dimensions.

5. Time estimation: At the point of assigning a bounty, the Bounty Hunter should probably confirm that the time estimate of the Bounty Provider represents a realistic estimate of the time required. I believe this flexibility is required in case the Bounty Provider has limited knowledge/experience with the aspect of the required task such that an accurate time estimate can not be guaranteed. This would prevent repeated cases of time-overrun.

These are my suggestions. Open to discuss them further if necessary.

[0xcodercrane]

Nice feedback. If I say my perspective about both roles of bounty provider and bounty reviewer in terms of the technical side, it could be one role like bounty manager because in most cases, bounty provider is the best bounty reviewer who knows what is actually needed, what should be referred to get it done, etc. In terms of payment for the provider, hunter, and reviewer, I don't pretty much like to mix up the payment of the bounty provider and bounty reviewer with the payment of the bounty hunter. For example, if we say like "Oh this bounty costs $1000", this should be only for bounty hunters. I think this actually works as so.

Bounty hunters will not like it if the exposed amount should be broken into 3 small ones.

And then there could be edge cases that they will think again to work on the bounty. I would recommend exposed amount should be paid to only bounty hunters. For the payment of bounty provider and bounty reviewer, I think we should discuss it in a different way. I am still not sure how.

Payment should be upon when a task (within a bounty) is deemed completed. E.g A bounty hunter and Bounty Reviewer are paid when a bounty is approved and merged. A Bounty Provider is paid when a Bounty is created according to the pre-defined standard specified above.

If the bounty provider and reviewer should be paid per bounty like a bounty hunter, the bounty provider also needs to get paid when a bounty gets completed because a bounty provider can write down the bounty description in a difficult way so it can be prolonged for a long time and nobody will catch up that bounty because it has high risks/ high tech problems sometimes. This means a financial loss totally. So as I said above, I would like to recommend that the bounty provider should be responsible for reviewing bounty as well. I would like to listen to the idea of the core management team about the payment for bounty providers and bounty reviewers.