| Report Date | 2026/08/25 |
| Submitted by | Nasihudeen Jimoh |
I am Nasihudeen Jimoh (Kanasjnr on GitHub), seeking retention at Rank I. Since promotion in June (referendum #541), I have continued contributing to polkadot-sdk, with supporting work toward polkadot-fellows/runtimes and public protocol analysis on the Polkadot Forum.
I took ownership of polkadot-sdk#11561 and drove deprecation cleanup across the SDK, landing one removal per PR as reviewers requested. The goal is to retire dead APIs so runtime authors are not steered toward unsupported paths. The most impactful merges this period dropped long-deprecated surfaces that had already been superseded for multiple release cycles — schedule::v1 (#12584), GenesisBuild (#12529), XCM builder and executor re-exports (#12503, #12505), and deprecated native/wasm executor helpers (#12669). Further removals across FRAME, XCM, node, and pallets are tracked in the issue; see all merged PRs and open PRs.
Beyond deprecation, I landed try-runtime exposure in bridge-hub-test-utils. ExtrinsicBaseWeight refinement, which corrects base extrinsic weight for FRAME-benchmarked runtimes, and descriptive module invalidity, which gives wallets and indexers actionable rejection reasons instead of opaque module indices, have both been approved and are pending merge. I am also working on XCM barrier weight accounting (#11302) and Asset Hub safe-mode / tx-pause deployment (runtimes#1164).
For knowledge-sharing, I published the concluding part of my consensus-lab series: The Double-Edged Sword of Finality. Using substrate-consensus-lab, I showed that GRANDPA finality is correctness-agnostic: a minority migration bug is quarantined by state-root divergence, but a supermajority-infected upgrade finalizes corrupt state permanently. The post ties those results to why Polkadot relies on governance delay, staging networks, and try-runtime before mainnet upgrades.
I intend to keep this mix of steady SDK maintenance and deeper FRAME/XCM work, and to participate more actively in Fellowship review and RFC discussion.
| Ranks | Activity thresholds | Agreement thresholds | Member's voting activities | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | 90% | N/A | N/A | No Rank I–eligible referenda to vote on during this period |
| II | 80% | N/A | ||
| III | 70% | 100% | ||
| IV | 60% | 90% | ||
| V | 50% | 80% | ||
| VI | 40% | 70% |
Threshold