ambassador

senior_ambassador

head_ambassador

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

![image.png](https://subsquare.infura-ipfs.io/ipfs/QmQgs4XysdHCJm2GWfJEhpkMueGZDuqKBYnfAC4e3Z1umT)
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](https://polkadot-blockchain-academy.github.io/alumni-hub/#/fellowship). I'm guessing the original source of the infographic is [here](https://subdaily.io/dev/polkadot-fellowship-a-concise-review/), which is not an official source of truth. 

This proposal is to promote Polkadot Blockchain Academy Alumni https://github.com/philoniare to Dan 1 in the technical fellowship.

His proof of candidacy can be found here: https://gist.github.com/philoniare/ee2639bbb19f65f7021ac49c24d5808d

toRank

Rejected

Submitted

DecisionStarted

DecisionDepositPlaced

promote_to_i_dan

[Promote philoniare To I Dan] Referendum #81

members

proficient_members

fellows

architects

architects_adept

grand_architects

masters

masters_constant

grand_masters

retain_at_i_dan

retain_at_ii_dan

retain_at_iii_dan

retain_at_iv_dan

retain_at_v_dan

retain_at_vi_dan

promote_to_ii_dan

promote_to_iii_dan

promote_to_iv_dan

promote_to_v_dan

promote_to_vi_dan

fast_promote_to_i_dan

fast_promote_to_ii_dan

fast_promote_to_iii_dan

Origin aggregated through weighted votes of those with rank 1 or above; `Success` is 1. Aka the "voice" of all Members.

Origin aggregated through weighted votes of those with rank 2 or above; `Success` is 2. Aka the "voice" of members at least II Dan

Origin aggregated through weighted votes of those with rank 3 or above; `Success` is 3. Aka the "voice" of all Fellows

Origin aggregated through weighted votes of those with rank 4 or above; `Success` is 4. Aka the "voice" of members at least IV Dan

Origin aggregated through weighted votes of those with rank 5 or above; `Success` is 5. Aka the "voice" of members at least V Dan

Origin aggregated through weighted votes of those with rank 6 or above; `Success` is 6. Aka the "voice" of members at least VI Dan

Origin aggregated through weighted votes of those with rank 7 or above; `Success` is 7. Aka the "voice" of all Masters

Origin aggregated through weighted votes of those with rank 8 or above; `Success` is 8. Aka the "voice" of members at least VIII Dan

Origin aggregated through weighted votes of those with rank 9 or above; `Success` is 9. Aka the "voice" of members at least IX Dan

Origin aggregated through weighted votes of those with rank 3 or above when voting on a fortnight-long track; `Success` is 1

Origin aggregated through weighted votes of those with rank 4 or above when voting on a fortnight-long track; `Success` is 2

Origin aggregated through weighted votes of those with rank 5 or above when voting on a fortnight-long track; `Success` is 3

Origin aggregated through weighted votes of those with rank 6 or above when voting on a fortnight-long track; `Success` is 4

Origin aggregated through weighted votes of those with rank 7 or above when voting on a fortnight-long track; `Success` is 5

Origin aggregated through weighted votes of those with rank 8 or above when voting on a fortnight-long track; `Success` is 6

Origin aggregated through weighted votes of those with rank 3 or above when voting on a month-long track; `Success` is 1

Origin aggregated through weighted votes of those with rank 4 or above when voting on a month-long track; `Success` is 2

Origin aggregated through weighted votes of those with rank 5 or above when voting on a month-long track; `Success` is 3

Origin aggregated through weighted votes of those with rank 6 or above when voting on a month-long track; `Success` is 4

Origin aggregated through weighted votes of those with rank 7 or above when voting on a month-long track; `Success` is 5

Origin aggregated through weighted votes of those with rank 8 or above when voting on a month-long track; `Success` is 6

Origin aggregated through weighted votes of those with rank 3 or above when voting on a 30 day long track; `Success` is 1.

Origin aggregated through weighted votes of those with rank 4 or above when voting on a 30 day long track; `Success` is 2.

Origin aggregated through weighted votes of those with rank 5 or above when voting on a 30 day long track; `Success` is 3.