Author Topic: [Worker Proposal] Blockchain maintenance developer  (Read 45870 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bhuz

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bhuz
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.
So basically we are paying CNX to fix their stuff

Quote
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.
This means that your team should actively help Theo on fixing and closing issues, not just pay him extra. I assume that Theo, being a CNX's dev, is already paid for his work.

I would like to see you/your team really making commits and fixing issues. This is what the shareholders expect from this worker IMO.

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4664
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Theo and I were discussing what kinds of issues we think should be tackled by this worker proposal based on the current github issues, and we came up with these general categories:

- minor bugfixes
- performance issues (websocket spaming is a high priority one, as this can seriously affect mobile web browsers)
- more unit tests (many are pending as issues in github now). Both of the last two network halts could have been potentially averted by more unit tests.
- Code cleanup (poor coding techniques, inconsistent coding methods, naming conventions, etc)
- BlockChain-level documentation
- cli_wallet maintenance (there's several issues related to the current API caching used by the cli wallet)
- minor features
IMO it's best if quoted text can be put into OP.
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4664
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
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.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2016, 10:43:56 am by abit »
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline svk

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.

Actually I would totally expect CNX to commit a developer to working on their main product, but apparently you and BM don't see it that way. It's their showpiece and their main product, to not work on it unless they're paid to do so is like Microsoft stopping development on Windows unless someone specifically pays them for it. It's very much in their interest to improve on Graphene, fix outstanding bugs and generally make it the best possible product they can.
Worker: dev.bitsharesblocks

Offline dannotestein

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 760
    • View Profile
    • BlockTrades International
  • BitShares: btsnow
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.
http://blocktrades.us Fast/Safe/High-Liquidity Crypto Coin Converter

Offline svk

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.
Worker: dev.bitsharesblocks

Offline dannotestein

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 760
    • View Profile
    • BlockTrades International
  • BitShares: btsnow
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.
http://blocktrades.us Fast/Safe/High-Liquidity Crypto Coin Converter

Offline svk

Worker: dev.bitsharesblocks




Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4664
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
so when will you upload the Windows binaries of latest release (2.0.160216)? Thanks.
It's up now, we just had to finish testing it.
Thanks.  +5%
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline dannotestein

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 760
    • View Profile
    • BlockTrades International
  • BitShares: btsnow
Also note that dan & co do the windows release builds.

Extremely interesting logic. I would have used that as an argument for them to not be payed actually. Why?

There seem to be just a single person around here  who NEEDS the win build(1) (as opposed to the rest that just build those themselves). When on a 3 page thread, for more than a week this person was asking for help, they did not come up with a single comment(2)...
AFAIK the most important player who needs "official" win builds is BTC38.
Really? BTC38 runs on win?

PS
well at least this  explains on several levels their slooow transition to BTS2.0
Yes, they run on win. And they don't build from source by themselves, nor trust binaries provided by others but the "official" one.

@dannotestein so when will you upload the Windows binaries of latest release (2.0.160216)? Thanks.
It's up now, we just had to finish testing it.
http://blocktrades.us Fast/Safe/High-Liquidity Crypto Coin Converter

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4664
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Also note that dan & co do the windows release builds.

Extremely interesting logic. I would have used that as an argument for them to not be payed actually. Why?

There seem to be just a single person around here  who NEEDS the win build(1) (as opposed to the rest that just build those themselves). When on a 3 page thread, for more than a week this person was asking for help, they did not come up with a single comment(2)...
AFAIK the most important player who needs "official" win builds is BTC38.
Really? BTC38 runs on win?

PS
well at least this  explains on several levels their slooow transition to BTS2.0
Yes, they run on win. And they don't build from source by themselves, nor trust binaries provided by others but the "official" one.

@dannotestein so when will you upload the Windows binaries of latest release (2.0.160216)? Thanks.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2016, 09:16:34 am by abit »
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
Also note that dan & co do the windows release builds.

Extremely interesting logic. I would have used that as an argument for them to not be payed actually. Why?

There seem to be just a single person around here  who NEEDS the win build(1) (as opposed to the rest that just build those themselves). When on a 3 page thread, for more than a week this person was asking for help, they did not come up with a single comment(2)...
AFAIK the most important player who needs "official" win builds is BTC38.
Really? BTC38 runs on win?

PS
well at least this  explains on several levels their slooow transition to BTS2.0
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.