Joystream / Joystream/joystream
Review WG lead vs. council boundary
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Rust
- Stars
- 1.4k
- Forks
- 116
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
Background
There are a number of key decision variables which are either controlled by the council or the lead of some subsystem, and there are costs to either choice:
- Lead: Risk that the actor either makes a fast and hostile/negligent decision.
- Council: Risk that it takes too long or never happen, or are not sufficiently high quality because council has limited domain expertise or information processing capacity.
It's not clear in all cases on which side of this boundary a given decision making authority should be located, but we do our best.
Proposal
Review all proposals and lead actions, and revise whether the actors is the optimal match.
This should be done as part of carthagne when all of the new proposals have been identified.
┆Issue is synchronized with this Asana task by Unito
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Begin with the proposals and lead actions referenced in the issue, then review the work in carthagne once all new proposals have been identified. Done means assessing each decision authority and revising whether the lead or council is the better match; no files or tests are named.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- blockchain
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 15/100