Propose Afri Schoedon from Lodestar #26
Conversation
philknows
commented
Nov 4, 2022
•
philknows
commented
- Name / identifier: Afri Schoedon
- Team: Lodestar
- Link to some work: https://github.com/eth-clients/goerli, [Comms] Goerli Testnet Community Call #6 eth-clients/goerli#129
- Short summary of their work / eligibility: Afri has been instrumental in helping Lodestar succeed as the current Head of Protocol Engineering at ChainSafe. His work includes overseeing Lodestar and contributing back to Ethereum protocol in the form of testnet coordination. Most notably, he organized and launched the Goerli testnet back in 2018 and is leading efforts on managing testnets at large, including coordination on how to fix Goerli, the most used public testnet for Ethereum. He also leads community efforts in coordinating testnets with the community.
|
Strongly support Afri's nomination, as he's someone who has helped push Ethereum forward in many ways over the years. Only caveat is that given his current role has him working across several protocols, I think a half-weight is the most appropriate weighting. Not a hill I will die on if others thing full weight is more appropriate, though! |
Although I support Afri's half weight, I think we need to be careful using past work as rationale for PG membership. PG is not a retroactive funding mechanism; its goal is to keep active contributors to the protocol engaged. |
Agreed, @lightclient ! I think his past work is sufficient to make him eligible to join PG, his current work makes me believe he'll be contributing for some time and we should add him, and if that turns out to change, then we should remove him (or anyone in similar circumstances) rather than keep him in because he did valuable work in the past. |
|
agree with the other comments that past work is not sufficient for present and future inclusion. I'd also like to voice that this may be one of the gray areas of contribution given the needs for testnet work are very intermittent |
|
reopening the discussion here for a clarification based on Afri's relevant work submission. he gave a start date of March 2017 with a 3 month break, which would give a weight of ~66 months
cc @philknows and others: which of this work would be considered eligible, and how does that translate into a "start date" or weight? IMO the main stuff we had considered for the original proposal was 1. testnet efforts (intermittently since 2018) and 2. Lodestar PM work (since 2021). Which i guess would put the start date at 2018 sometime, but it's hard to say how many "months" that translates to. There are other things in there that would have been qualified (hardfork coordinator, Parity client) but are not ongoing at this time, so are not included in the weighting according to how we currently do eligibility. curious what others think about the above, this is a bit of a unique case, but good to specify while we build the norms for PG. further, he submitted a full weight, whereas we agreed his current work is partial weight, so at minimum we need to clarify that to him. I've changed the required info to include when proposing new members to avoid this in the future, feedback welcome. we also need to be sure to communicate this to new members when they fill out the form |
+1 to this. On the more complex I see that Afri added a 3 month gap in his submission. Perhaps it makes sense to extend that gap to cover periods when the core of the work wasn't focused on Ethereum itself? That said, I appreciate it's a hard line to draw. Very curious to hear how others feel here. |
|
Hey all, sorry for the miscommunication. He is aware as of this point that his admission to PG is only based on a 0.5 weight after explanation and he fully agrees with this. He is a very special case with contributions that were core to Ethereum previously but I think we had agreed above that PG isn't supposed to be retroactive so it would seem to make sense to me that nothing before the start of PGv1 would be eligible. If the goal of PG is also to re-attract previous core contributors back to Ethereum so they can claim their contributions from pre-PGv1, that is something that should probably be discussed with more PG members. So if we go by his eligible contributions post May 2021 (PGv1 start date), the ones that would matter most are:
I can attest to the work he has done to help ensure the success of Lodestar. Also some feedback from Afri, the onboarding airtable doc wasn't clear on what is and what isn't eligible. I think I also failed to communicate this to him as well, which is why the current submission from his side looks like he is trying to claim all the work from his early days. 😅 |
To be clear, that's how PG works today: many PG members, myself included, have start dates pre-PG launch. I think the challenge with Afri specifically is that there were "gaps" and it's not clear how to best account for them.
Yeah, that's fair, we should clarify this better, and it's a WIP where things are tested with edge cases...! As I said above, my personal view is all the xDAI stuff probably isn't in scope, but everything else LGTM. @dapplion @terencechain @lightclient @rolfyone @tvanepps curious what you all think? |
|
I believe Afri should not quality for PGv2 given the peripheral nature of his contributions, akin to solidity, tooling, etc. For PGv1 qualification, it's a grey area I'm undecided on. |
|
thanks for the info @philknows. agree we need to tune the onboarding process, hopefully this helps us avoid confusion like this in the future! So - we've resolved the partial weight question. I'm fine including the Parity work even though that's not the work he is involved with now - it would have been impossible to continuously work on it when the client was retired. The work itself would be considered eligible if it were proposed around that time. I've gotten the specific dates from Afri: Parity: Mar 2017 - Mar 2020 so that's a start weight of 69 |
"$9.6m" -> "all donations"
