Threshold
Initially, in 2021 we called them all common-good chains. Later, the consensus was that (and I cite Joe here) "there are no more common good chains", that all are systemchains (at that time my understanding was this included Encointer). Gav recently called Encointer a historic "anomaly". So how do you want to treat that anomaly: live with it or get rid of it?
In 2023 we said: If Encointer has no root origin and is a KSM teleporter, it should be part of the fellowship repo to streamline reviews and deployment. The fellowship agreed (RFC-22) https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/RFCs/blob/main/text/0022-adopt-encointer-runtime.md. Please note that Encointer's runtime lives in the system-parachains folder. Call it confusion or inconsistency, but it would've been easy to put it in a folder called common-good-parachains at that time. Or just refuse RFC-22 altogether.
What's indisputable:
What seems to be the controversy:
As stated before: I personally will pursue my visions inside or outside of the fellowship. With a fellowship salary or without. On Kusama or somewhere else.
But I don't see how the Encointer runtime can reasonably be maintained inside the fellowship repo without Encointer devs being members of fellowship
Edited
Thanks for your precise statement @Joe/TECH-FELLOWSHIP . Pardon for iterating the naming confusion.
Whether or not contributions to the Kusama protocol should count for retention in the Polkadot Technical Fellowship is germane to this referendum
yes.
And I think the other stuff mentioned is relevant as a precedent: Why accept RFC-22 and grant me, and other Encointer devs membership in the first place if your summarized question shall be answered with Nay?
However. Let's see how this turns out.
Edited
Changing to Aye again. There really should be some heads up. For the next retention proposal, I would not consider Kusama system chain contributions anymore.
Edited
The CGP/system-parachain distinction is moot. The Manifesto has not changed in years and is clear about relevant activity. Encointer is unrelated to the Polkadot (Main) Network and as such its development is not included. See section 2.3.1:
Based on the above, we may conclude that expertise on the following technology and its strict descrip-
tion(s) and/or implementation(s) would be considered a goal of the Fellowship:
• the internals of all functional Polkadot node implementations;
• cryptographic data-structures, algorithms, languages and apis required for the continued upkeep of the Polkadot
(Main) Network;
• consensus algorithms concerning the Relay-chain (babe & grandpa);
• trust-free bridges relying on said consensus algorithms (planned to be) utilised by system chains;
• parachain consensus;
• cross-chain message passing (xcmp, hrmp, dmp & ump);
• the Polkadot libp2p-based peer networking protocol;
• the Polkadot topology strategies;
• chain synchronisation strategies utilised by Polkadot;
• the Polkadot business-logic (aka the “runtime”);
• pallets utilised by the Polkadot (Main) Network and its system chains;
• the internals of the frame pallet framework;
• runtime and host apis;
• the xcm specification and realisation;
• standard rpcs;
• user-interface code required to practically execute upgrades to the Polkadot (Main) Network; and
• code or technology required by, and utilised primarily for, any code or technology already included.
In short, if expertise on a technology (or a specific implementation of it) is required and primarily used for the Polkadot (Main) Network to continue operating and improving, then it is covered. If it is not then it is not.
Why accept RFC-22 and grant me, and other Encointer devs membership in the first place if your summarized question shall be answered with Nay?
As I remember, Fellowship status was granted on the basis of contributions to admissible components.
Edited
@eskimor I expect no heads-up or grace period. I'd rather have this matter decided at this occasion
As I remember, Fellowship status was granted on the basis of contributions to admissible components.
My promotion to rank II was exclusively argued with Encointer scope (which I understood as a precedent that Encointer IS an admissible component):
https://collectives.subsquare.io/fellowship/referenda/139
I want to state this very clearly here and this is no change to my previous statements: My focus here is Encointer and, more generally, democratizing governance. I plan to contribute to other scopes of the fellowship repos only occasionally. I'm willing to increase my voting activity, as stated above. I won't make promises beyond that.
Ok. Given that another 4 days have passed, I assume we can consider this settled. Basic summary: Kusama only contributions do not count as fellowship contributions.
Had to change my vote to Nay unfortunately as Encointer is not a Polkadot system chain and the Polkadot Fellowship is only about Polkadot system chains according to the manifesto. Not sure this is fair, given that we did grant promotion last time based on pretty much similar contributions. At least a heads up would have been nice. So feel free to disagree and discuss. Happy to change my vote to whatever we can reach consensus on.