Proposal “crdev-dashdrv-201609“ (Closed)Back

Title:Core Development - 12.2 DashDrive Developers (Sept)
Owner:babygiraffe
One-time payment: 356 DASH (32086 USD)
Completed payments: 1 totaling in 356 DASH (0 month remaining)
Payment start/end: 2016-09-05 / 2016-10-20 (added on 2016-08-19)
Final voting deadline: in passed
Votes: 1117 Yes / 7 No / 0 Abstain

Proposal description

This is a cross-post from the Dash Forum

This proposal continues the monthly funding for DashDrive developers first approved in the August budget, updated for new costs and a higher exchange rate. The overall effect is a reduction in Dash terms.

We are presently building out the foundational elements needed for Evolution in Dash-Core and Dash-Evolution completely separately to accelerate the process. These pieces will be connected together in a later release for the full realization of Evolution.

On the Dash-Core side, we are currently testing v12.1 (which will be released soon for public testing). We are in parallel starting development on 12.2 (DashDrive).

Evan has been the workhorse behind the Dash-Core progress to date, along with some support from part-time core team developers. For the 12.2 DashDrive release, we are accelerating development by funding additional Dash-Core resources to work for Evan. The specific skill set is C++ programmers familiar with the Bitcoin and / or Dash code base. Evan has hired two developers and is busy onboarding them and familiarizing them with the code. In addition, they are helping with testing of 12.1.

The funding requested is $5,000 per month and is expected to continue through March. However, because of the price appreciation since the last proposal and leftover funds from previous periods, we are only seeking an additional $4,578 this month.

Requested funding is as follows for the September 4th budget cycle:
Total: 355.74 Dash

Note: Any unused funds from this Dash-Core development funding will be directed toward other development expenses.

Show full description ...

Discussion: Should we fund this proposal?

Submit comment
 
3 points,7 months ago
I am confused by the existence of task-specific Core proposals when there is already a continuing Core salary.

There should be one or the other. Task (or even person-specific) proposals, or an umbrella to cover everything.

The existence of both deprives me of my ability to judge the Core salary payout of its efficacy. Is it necessary, or not? I have no way of knowing.

So now I have the conundrum of either voting no on this proposal, or changing my "yes" vote to "no" on the Core salary proposal.

Which should I do, babygiraffe?
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
These are supplemental resources to allow us to accelerate the project relative to what the core team can provide on its own. It is not strictly "necessary" but by subcontracting tasks, we can deliver version 12.2 faster and free up Evan's time for other tasks. So this is a "bolt-on" option for the core team, not a replacement. I would say the combination of votes that make sense would be:
1) Yes on core and yes on this
2) Yes on core and no on this
3) No on core and no on this

The only combination that wouldn't make sense is no on core and yes on this... without the core team, there would be nothing for these resources to provide support to.
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
Thanks for the reply.
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
I have no idea if this helps, but what this is is in addition to our core developers. Evolution was going to take almost 2 years to complete. Then someone had the realization that we could hire from "outside" people to take on sections of the project. Dash Drive, Wallet design, Oh god, I had no sleep last night, I forget how the sectioned off the whole, but basically these sections can stand alone and be integrated later, so they were perfect for subcontracting out. This is one of the sections they've hired contractors for.

The title really needs to be changed to simply Dash Drive Developers or something 1. readable and 2. descriptive.
Reply
0 points,7 months ago
Thanks for the additional information.
Reply