[Promote philoniare To I Dan] Referendum #81

The amount and type of contributions do not really show "dedication to the protocol" IMO.

I was hoping to become a humble contributor. My contributions are trivial at the moment, which I was under the impression was sufficient for a Dan I?

Requirements.
• Three clear examples of a modest but substantial contribution to protocol development.
• Actively been involved in the design of a component. The component should be either deployed into the protocol
or reasonably intended for future deployment into protocol and at the standard expected of a PRP2.
• Substantially assisted in the analysis, or authoring of formalisation or implementation of a protocol component.
Formalisation should be at the standard expected of a peer-reviewed publication. Analysis should either lead
to a change in the protocol or be at the standard expected of a PRP. Implementation should be in a functional
implementation of the protocol.
• Should be able to list all key goals, principles and tenets of Polkadot’s overall philosophy.
Possible examples of a “modest but substantial contribution” may be:
• identifying and correcting a non-trivial issue in protocol code or formalisation;
• being available and playing a crucial operational role for a network fix;
• proposing a reasonable and non-trivial protocol innovation; or
• doing a valuable, innovative and insightful refactoring or simplification.

These are the requirements as listed in the manifesto.

Appreciate the follow-up, I may have underestimated the scope and level of commitment required to qualify for even the entry level of the fellowship program. Given the substantial time commitment and technical contributions required, such as correcting non-trivial issues, proposing protocol innovations, and doing complex refactorings, I wonder if it might be worth reevaluating the balance between the expectations and compensation for Level I fellows. Ensuring that the requirements are commensurate with the financial support could help make the program more accessible to promising early-career contributors.

I agree that with that specific list from the manifesto, philoniare probably does not qualify as Dan I.

But without a doubt, these requirements are intense. I am truly interested to see the path for the first person to meet these requirements having not been an employee at Parity or having entered Rank 1+ from the seeding.

But without a doubt, these requirements are intense.

For sure. There was also already quite some discussion in different places about this. Generally I would personally also not enforce this in every detail. However, I would at least for rank I expect to see some kind of work that goes beyond doing simple search and replace work. None of the linked pull requests required any kind of special knowledge about any kind of component. 2 - 3 pull requests which implement actual functionality that is not trivial or do some kind of non trivial refactorings should be really the minimum from my POV. These pull requests could also be paid by giving out some tips.

I am truly interested to see the path for the first person to meet these requirements having not been an employee at Parity or having entered Rank 1+ from the seeding.

https://collectives.subsquare.io/fellowship/referenda/23

Thanks for the thorough explanation and clarifying my expectations. I'll be sure to take on more non-trivial work to meet the requirements for becoming a Rank 1

Where did you get this info graphic from @philoniare? From the Polkassembly or Subsquare UI?
I think we should fix this, as it leads to wrong expectations. The only source of truth is this, https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/manifesto no matter what 3rd party UIs show.

Yeah, would be great if we could update the page on PBA alumni. I'm guessing the original source of the infographic is here, which is not an official source of truth.