Grant Proposal - CIDT, Technical Facilitator Role

Grant Proposal - Eugene Fine, Technical Facilitator Role

tags: polywrap, proposals

Background

I am a principal lead at CIDT (https://consideritdone.tech) and our team is a Polywrap DAO Contributor. We are very proud of our past and ongoing contributions, including Polywrap DAO Hub (GitHub - polywrap/hub: The Polywrap Hub: Explore, Interact, and Deploy).

I have experience building and scaling technology organizations, and management of the Software Development Lyfe Cycle (SDLC) including product design, development, quality assurance, compliance, security, distribution and support. My past and present projects include CTO role at Explorer Surgical Corp. (About | GHX), leadership role at CIDT, technical leadership contributions to Certified NFT (https://www.certifiednft.io), Nodle Block Explorer (https://explorer.nodle.com), to name a few.

Overview

I’m proposing to contributed in the following areas:

Technical Standards & Specification: Understand and clearly document the technical details that make-up the “Polywrap Standard” into a coherent specification. Create processes for updating various inter-connected standards. Define sane versioning schemes for its various pieces, allowing for as much forward-backward compatibility as possible into the future.

“Technical Council” Facilitation: Help facilitate the “Technical Council”, a core-development forum where new standards & features can be discussed and debated. This may take the form of text-based communications or calls, all with the goal of extracting as many key developer opinions as possible to ensure we’re making well researched and thoughtful decisions.

Proposal Justification

It’s necessary to further Polywrap DAO’s mission in becoming a technical standards body. The long-term goals of this effort would be to help make the:

  • Polywrap DAO as reliable as other high profile technical organizations such as CloudFlare, Amazon, or Google.
  • Polywrap standard / toolchain as “firm” a building block as other prevelant technical standards such as HTTP, Linux, or Chromium.

Requested Grant

Phase 1 (Completed July 31, 2022)

Start Date Time Commitment Stable Coin / Month WRAP
March 1, 2022 ~10-15 hrs/week $9,675 TBD
  • 12.5 hrs/week X 4.3 weeks/month X $180/hr = $9,675/month

Phase 2

Start Date Time Commitment Rate Est. Stable Coin / Month WRAP
August 1, 2022 7 hrs/week $150/h $4,515 TBD
  • 52/12 = 4.3 (weeks per month calculation based on 52 weeks per 12 month in a year)

Roadmap

GitHub Project: Technical Council · GitHub

Component Title
Technical Council Operations Establish regular cadence for Technical Council sessions and interactions
Technical Council Operations Establish Technical Council charter, governance and rules of conduct
Technical Council Operations Define and administer Technical Council communication procedures
Technical Council Operations Establish and manage Technical Council memberships
Technical Council Operations Manage Technical Council budget and resources
Technical Council Operations Report on Technical Council deliverables, operations and performance
Technical Standards & Specification Facilitate definition and manage Technical Standards & Specifications roadmap
Technical Standards & Specification Define and administer publishing platform version management
Technical Standards & Specification Define and administer publishing and approval workflows

Sponsor Review

Sponsor: dOrgJelli
Links: Meeting Notes

Terms

By submtting this proposal, I understand that the DAO and my sponsor will be evaluating whether my work meets the acceptance criteria. If it does not, the DAO will determine what percentage of the proposal cost to pay, if any.

I also understand that I may not begin work until it is confirmed that the Snapshot proposal has passed.

[ X ] I agree

Questions from Evan on February 22, 2022:

  1. It’s not clear from the proposal whether this contribution would be via CIDT or whether Eugene would be acting as an independent contributor.
  2. Is this proposal for a fixed duration or is it essentially for an ongoing commitment? In other words, is this proposal a vote on Eugene becoming a Core Contributor?
  3. The asking rate ($10k per month for 10-15 hours per week) greatly exceeds the currently proposed compensation for core contributors (~$3,600/month for 25% Commitment Level at Value Level 5). What is the reason for this amount of compensation?

Please see my responses inline:

  1. It’s not clear from the proposal whether this contribution would be via CIDT or whether Eugene would be acting as an independent contributor.

I will continue to be engaged via CIDT, with my company’s affiliation clearly visible through my sig. I believe it is important to retain this affiliation to avoid any concerns regarding a conflict of interest when it comes to any endorsements of other CIDT proposals — providing visibility into my connection to CIDT in such circumstances will be important.

  1. Is this proposal for a fixed duration or is it essentially for an ongoing commitment? In other words, is this proposal a vote on Eugene becoming a Core Contributor?

This is not a proposal Core Contributor role. At this time, the goal is to engage as a CIDT consultant, with a proposal re-approval process on the monthly basis, similarly to all other CIDT proposals. It is my intent to self-impose a pseudo-trial period of 3-6 months, to ensure I can provide a valuable contribution for the DAO and align well with all core contributors before proposing to transition to the core contributor role.

  1. The asking rate ($10k per month for 10-15 hours per week) greatly exceeds the currently proposed compensation for core contributors (~$3,600/month for 25% Commitment Level at Value Level 5). What is the reason for this amount of compensation?

This proposal is based on CIDT rates for a technical leadership role. It is important to note that WRAP distribution will be significantly reduced as compared to core contributor distribution.

A couple of questions/concerns:

  1. What is the difference between this role and the current role of Evan Jacobs? To me, it appears that they’re either the same or that this one is a superset of responsibilities (since the proposal is more detailed).
  2. The asking rate (counting 10h/week) is $250/h (not counting WRAP, since it’s TBD) is higher than the highest (value level 5) compensation amount for core contributors (with WRAP included). It seems like either the rate is too high, the value level 5 compensation should be higher, or we should have a 6th value level.
  3. I think this is the first proposal that I’ve seen which hasn’t specified an hourly rate, but a range. Is this because it depends on the TBD WRAP compensation?

I’ve made updates to this proposal’s “Requested Grant” section per @eugenefine 's suggestion:

Requested Grant

Start Date Time Commitment Rate Est. Stable Coin / Month WRAP
March 1, 2022 10-15 hrs/week $180/h $7,740 - $11,610 (see explanation below) TBD
  • 52/12 = 4.3 (weeks per month calculation based on 52 weeks per 12 month in a year)

Looks good. I think with that my 2. and 3. points are addressed.
That leaves the 1st point, but Evan mentioned he has a call with Eugene scheduled to go over that.
And another point that came up was that the time commitment MIGHT be a bit low to manage every responsibility listed. But, that’s also something Evan said he’s gonna cover on the call with Eugene.

@evanjacobs Can you post the summary of the call once it’s done?

@eugenefine Based on our conversation today, can you please update this proposal to be limited to the Areas of Contribution that we discussed (i.e. “Technical Standards & Specification” and “Technical Council Facilitation”)?

Also, you mentioned that you foresee this to be ~3 month commitment. Can you please add a “Duration” column to the “Requested Grant” table that specifies this?

Finally, can you clarify your request for “TBD” WRAP in your request?

Hi, please see my responses below:

  1. What is the difference between this role and the current role of Evan Jacobs? To me, it appears that they’re either the same or that this one is a superset of responsibilities (since the proposal is more detailed).

Evan and I have met to discuss our overall approach and delineation of responsibilities. Based on this conversation, in general terms, Evan is going to focus on the definition of the Roadmap for each Team/Workgroup, defining Roadmap dependencies and aligning the overall Roadmap with DAO; while I will be focusing on my efforts on the definition of SDLC Process and Technical Standards, and organization and facilitation of the Technical Council.

Even though there are definite overlaps between Evan’s and mine roles, I see it as a benefit, as it will give us an opportunity to work closely with each other and develop great product and technology leadership practices and standards.

  1. The asking rate (counting 10h/week) is $250/h (not counting WRAP, since it’s TBD) is higher than the highest (value level 5) compensation amount for core contributors (with WRAP included). It seems like either the rate is too high, the value level 5 compensation should be higher, or we should have a 6th value level.
  2. I think this is the first proposal that I’ve seen which hasn’t specified an hourly rate, but a range. Is this because it depends on the TBD WRAP compensation?

I think this is a fair critique and I agree that the rate should be clearly stated. I updated the proposal with our baseline technical leadership role rate of $180/hour. Please see the updated proposal for more details.

This is also not a Core Contributor rate, Evan had a similar question, and here is the explanation I’ve provided:

This is not a proposal Core Contributor role. At this time, the goal is to engage as a CIDT consultant, with a proposal re-approval process on the monthly basis, similarly to all other CIDT proposals. It is my intent to self-impose a pseudo-trial period of 3-6 months, to ensure I can provide a valuable contribution for the DAO and align well with all core contributors before proposing to transition to the core contributor role. This proposal is based on CIDT rates for a technical leadership role. It is important to note that WRAP distribution will be significantly reduced as compared to core contributor distribution.

@evanjacobs I removed Technical Working Group Roadmapping section from my proposal, however, I would like to retain Integration (1st & 3rd Party) and Releases & SLAs as we did not get a chance to discuss those sections. I think that there will be efforts related to standards definition in those processes as well.

Regarding the duration, I wanted to clarify that I believe the initial set of standards can be produced in this timeframe (milestone 1), however, technical council facilitation is likely to be an ongoing process. I do intend to have a much better definition of the deliverables and timelines as this effort is going to get scoped out, and will produce a roadmap in the same format as all other workgroups.

Finally, regarding WRAP, @keeevin suggested that WRAP allocation is being determined and instructions will be provided once available.

I understood your explanation. I was just pointing out that, in my opinion, from the POV of the DAO, the asking rate was outside of our budget.
The new rate is much more reasonable and clearly stated, so I have no more qualms about it.

I think this is well defined and all looks good to me!

@eugenefine: It looks like the “Roadmap” heading was removed but that the bullet points under there (e.g. “establish regular cadence with WGs for Roadmap Grooming”) remained. Can you please remove these?

You’ve referred to “milestone 1” in this comment but I don’t see any other reference to that. What exactly will be included in “milestone 1” and when would that be delivered? Are there additional milestones?

@DaoAdvocate: You are heavily involved with 3rd party integrations. Do you have any feedback about the role that @eugenefine is proposing to play in this area and how it might overlap with your work?

@eugenefine: It looks like the “Roadmap” heading was removed but that the bullet points under there (e.g. “establish regular cadence with WGs for Roadmap Grooming”) remained. Can you please remove these?

Updated. Going forward, the proposal author will be the one who submits proposals to the forum so they can make edits directly.

Hey Evan, thanks for the ping. Indeed, Eugene and I were able to hold a conversation last week to understand more clearly how to align efforts without duplicating responsibilities. Just noticing now that the proposal description has changed and is not listing “Integrations” per se. Might be still worth to explain what we discussed last week;

Through the “Technical Facilitator” role, Eugene would be focusing on preparing the “Technical Council” team to provide guidance to integrators (both internal to the DAO and external like launch partners), while focusing on the various “dependencies” or “blockers” they might have to overcome to reach these goals.

To organize our team’s efforts, I’ve suggested that through what we call now the “Integrations Team” or “Partnerships Team”, we lead the coordination of standardized workshops and other feedback sessions with experienced members of Polywrap DAO and its Technical Council. In a sense, the “Integrations team” would act as the “Account Management” branch of other traditional orgs, as they would hande details and act as Point of Contact for each client, making sure they are constantly progressing. The calls with the Partners and Technical Council would serve a similar purpose through out the different stages of the partner journey (i.e.: we always have empower the integrator to tackle the milestones through writing a technical spec, drawing architecture diagrams, suggesting use of experimental features, etc). Such workshop calls would be scheduled periodically (once a month or so) with increasing frequency depending on how much importance the DAO gives to each use case. This can be fine-tuned in the near future. Hopefully a lot of the work can all be automated and integrated to a “partners funnel” we can all monitor and track effectiveness.

tldr; eugene would be collaborating through the technical council on scheduled calendly calls with partners and the integrations team. the purpose of these calls is to pinpoint milestones and give specialized feedback to integrators. to really know the amount of effort needed here, we have to figure the cadence and length of these calls.

Hi @eugenefine, for the purpose of “sponsor review”, could I request some additional details around how you’ve spent your time (in this role) this past month?

Hi @dOrgJelli ,

Here is the current snapshot of the Technical Council operatons tasks assigned to me:

Title Status
Establish regular cadence for Technical Council sessions and interactions Done
Establish Technical Council charter, governance and rules of conduct In Progress
Define and administer Technical Council communication procedures In Progress
Establish and manage Technical Council memberships In Progress
Facilitate definition and manage Technical Standards & Specifications roadmap In Progress
Report on Technical Council deliverables, operations and performance In Progress
Manage Technical Council budget and resources Todo
Define and administer publishing platform version management Done
Define and administer publishing and approval workflows In Progress

In addition, the following activities have been completed as well:

1 Like

Sponsor Review

Really appreciate the details @eugenefine. This all LGTM!

The repo + project board are super clean, very excited to continue refining the process & get some initial standards written and features researched!

Hey @eugenefine, could I request information for the month of April so I may do my “sponsor review”?

Hi @dOrgJelli @keeevin @evanjacobs —
here is Technical Council progress report for April, 2022:

Technical Council Activities (April, 2022)

Technical Council Operations Progress

Title Status Operations Period
Qualities Definition Done Apr, 2022
Define organization of standard repository Done Apr, 2022
Define and administer publishing platform version management Done Apr, 2022
Conduct Technical Council Standards: Invocation Standard Workshop Done Apr, 2022
Conduct Technical Council Standards: WRAP Protocol Workshop Done Apr, 2022
Conduct Technical Council Standards: URI, URI Resolver, URI Resolution Done Apr, 2022
Facilitate definition and manage Features roadmap In Progress Ongoing
Facilitate definition and manage Technical Standards & Specifications roadmap In Progress Ongoing
Report on Technical Council deliverables, operations and performance In Progress Ongoing

Standards Definition Progress

Title Priority Standard Status
WRAP Protocol 1 - Critical Initial Feedback
URI 1 - Critical Initial Feedback
URI Resolution 2 - High Initial Feedback
Invocation Standard 1 - Critical Initial Feedback

Features Definition Progress

Title Priority Feature Status
Schema Build Artifact 1 - Critical Needs Draft
Multi-client Ecosystem Support 1 - Critical Needs Draft
Polywrap Integration Testing Framework 1 - Critical Needs Draft
Static vs Dynamic URIs 2 - High Needs Draft
Improve Error Tracebacks 2 - High Needs Draft

Amazing, thank you sir, everything looks good to me!