Here's a list of issues handled by this worker to date. Most of these were done by theoretical, other than #251 and the ones related to Windows builds, since BlockTrades has been tied up with other work for most of the period.
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/251
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/514
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/516
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/542
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/549
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/550
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/553
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/555
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/556
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/559
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/562
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/566
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/572
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/586
So is theoretical part of Blocktrades now? Or is the way this worker will function that you pay whoever happens to fix bugs in the repo? Will you pay abit too then?
Seems like a bad deal for us for the $7-8000 a month you're being paid to be honest..
No, Theo's not a part of BlockTrades. As I posted originally, the pay was for us and for subcontractors such as CNX: I tried to be very open about that. Sometimes it will be us, sometimes CNX, and yes, potentially others as well. BM asked me to help shoulder some of the load of responding to issues in GitHub related to the blockchain as CNX was tied up with confidential transactions and other projects and Theo was basically having to manage everything on his own. That was stressing him out, and I don't blame him.
Sure, but working on graphene is already his job and I assume he's being paid by CNX to do so, so it seems weird to me that you're claiming responsibility for stuff he would have done anyway.
The backlog of issues in the graphene repo is frustratingly long and I was hoping you would add some additional manpower to it because like you say theoretical does need help there. With the kind of worker pay you're asking I think we have a right to expect you to put serious resources into this.
CNX pays Theo, and CNX has to get money from somewhere to pay him. You can't reasonably expect CNX to commit a programmer and a 1/2 to full time work on BitShares without any compensation (the 1/2 being limited support from other CNX folks such as BM/Valentine/etc). During this pay period, the larger portion will go to CNX and we'll take a much smaller proportion for the work we did. If the total charges from CNX and BT is less than the total paid during a pay period, I'll send it back to the reserve fund. BT didn't do a lot this period because higher priority things came up, but CNX did do a lot of work, so I think the full fee is justified. Next pay period, I hope it works out differently, but I can't say for sure yet.
I don't think it's a good way if you created a worker and then distribute most of payment to CNX, especially when the worker is voted in mainly with CNX's stakes.
By the way, I'm checking the list you posted above. By now, I found that at least IMO 516 is in the scope of STEALTH feature so it should not be paid by this worker.
//Update:
If you just list the issues which have been fixed, and distribute payments to the contributors, you should not do it selectively. Anyone who has worked for the issues should get a cut, the work should not be limited to coding but also contains documentation, analysis, testing and etc.
//Update2:
With the report, can you give us a plan of next items you'll work on, and the priorities of them?
Can you please work on high priority jobs first? I'd rather like to see what progress you've made on the API server spamming issue
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/540 , which is one of the most important reasons why people voted for you. If you've found that you're unable to fix it, please tell us rather sooner than later, so others will probably spend more time/efforts on it.
Topic: [Worker Proposal] Blockchain maintenance developer (Read 60277 times)
