| Report Date | 2024/10/02 |
| Submitted by | Serban Iorga |
@serban.iorga:parity.io14oHMAJ5btnDCusHrTWraw1wTsLJwZeqPDLxusm1R1Zh3Vxa12024/03/122024/07/03BridgesBEEFYMMROmni-NodeIn the current reporting period, my main contributions have been related to Omni-Node and parity-scale-codec.
I worked on separating the generic logic from polkadot-parachain-bin in a library (polkadot-parachain-lib):
https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/pull/5288 . This enables the parachain teams to build their own slightly
customized node, without duplicating the code in polkadot-parachain-bin.
I have added support for starting nodes with u64 block number in polkadot-parachain-lib:
https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/pull/5269 . This was needed in order to support a parachain use case:
https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/issues/4787 .
I have added support for starting a node with manual seal to polkadot-parachain-lib:
https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/pull/5586 . This is aimed at improving parachain development/debugging speed.
I worked on adding support for tracking and limiting the heap memory usage while decoding: https://github.com/paritytech/parity-scale-codec/pull/616 .
I added benchmarks for the BEEFY forking equivocation logic: https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/pull/5188 .
| Ranks | Activity thresholds | Agreement thresholds | Member's voting activities | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | 90% | N/A | I have voted on 0 out of 1 referenda in which I was eligible to vote (0% voting activity). | |
| II | 80% | N/A | ||
| III | 70% | 100% | ||
| IV | 60% | 90% | ||
| V | 50% | 80% | ||
| VI | 40% | 70% |
Question(s):
Concern(s):
Comment(s):
Threshold
The substance of this evidence is definitely valid for rank 1 retention, going to AYE on that.
My only critic point here would be package it a bit nicer and explaining what the impact is. Why is it important for Polkadot?