Notice: Polkadot has migrated to AssetHub. Balances, data, referenda, and other on-chain activity has moved to AssetHub.Learn more
Technical reviews by Kusama/Polkadot Developers
A first testbed for a technical reviews bounty, aiming to complete the circle of on-chain proposal submission on Kusama and Polkadot Networks, by rewarding external developers who review deliverables of a funded proposal.
We have now, after some changes to the process, a more consolidated way of drafting and submitting treasury proposals for discussion, vote and deliver reports: but we find it difficult for Council members to fulfil a particular task: to review the quality of the deliverables in a funded project. The reason for this might be lack of time, expertise or both - we cannot expect all councillors to be experts in all topics a proposal touches.
We want to propose a bounty that will allow external technical users to review specific deliverables and be rewarded for it, supporting the work of the Council.
Full link of the proposal can be found HERE: Please leave any comments, questions and concerns!
Comments (4)
Minor clarification maybe: does participating in governance on one network allow you to be a technical reviewer on the other? Or does participating in either preclude you from both?
Patract had submitted many treasury proposals and already delivered all of them. The most recent one on Kusama is Ask! v0.1 (report at https://kusama.polkassembly.io/post/494). We are happy about this review bounty design, because it can give quick and professional feedbacks of our project, so that we can improve our past and future work and give the council a third-party evaluation reference. We would love the council choose Ask! v0.1 as the first trial for this exciting model.
Patract is also honored to be a Kusama council member now. We want to ask if curators only choose one reviewer for each proposal report, would the result be biased possibly? How about two or three reviewers at the same time and take the average review result?