<k​ayabanerve:matrix.org> I replied to jeffro256's post gist.github.com/kayabaNerve/0e1f771…ment_id=5027713#gistcomment-5027713

<j​effro256:monero.social> Thanks for the feedback

Hey all, as you know we usually cover ~1/3rd of "fundational" (whether dev or research) CCS proposals, from the General Fund.

I'll be happy to do the same for the MRL slush funds being discussed. Any opinion on this?

<o​ne-horse-wagon:monero.social> It sounds much nicer if you use the phrase "discretionary funds" instead of "slush funds". Slush sounds nefarious while discretionary does not.

<o​ne-horse-wagon:monero.social> And yes, it would be nice to have discretionary funds available. I'm all in favor of it.

sorry, not a native speaker, no intention to sound anything negative.

so if we do as usual, a CCS proposal must be put forward and the GF is then funding some of it, but not replacing the proposal.

<o​ne-horse-wagon:monero.social> Glad to hear you will support the effort as you have other proposals in the past. Great!

Great move from the General Fund

Would this change the structure of your fcmp ccs kayabanerve?

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> kayabanerve (because I'm not sure its pinging through IRC)

Would be good to "pre fund" things after aproval so it goes to funding at a reduced amount with the funds earmarked / staying in the GF wallet(s) instead of shuffling funds around needlessly, just a thought

plowsof: If we do that, it puts a continuous duty on me to pay the earmarked funds or not. Imagine something goes horribly wrong with the proposal and a large part of the community lobies for not paying. In such a case I would be left to decide without the backing of the CCS rules, processes and known practices.

I prefer to leverage the CCS system whenever possible to facilicate decision making

<k​ayabanerve:monero.social> binaryFate: I am a native speaker and I called it a slush fund so don't worry :p Turns out "earmarked" is the better term here.

<k​ayabanerve:monero.social> plowsof: The point of the CCS was stability and reduced latency. Even if the GF starts funding 33% of proposals, that doesn't cover the 67% nor the latency.

<k​ayabanerve:monero.social> Re: decision making, if core wants to reject my proposal for circumventing the CCS flow (albeit via a CCS), I would be forced to concede there and remove that R proposal for solely the D proposal. I'd then have to make several shifts in discussions :/

<k​ayabanerve:monero.social> To be clear, I would accept the above and do my best to work around it. It's just more problematic IMO.

<p​y.verse:matrix.org> There was a lot of gas lighting for FCMP, seraphis is out of reach for the next few years

<p​y.verse:matrix.org> You need to show something if you want their support

<p​y.verse:matrix.org> Like the recent donations to GF

<p​y.verse:matrix.org> You're gonna lose all of that if you cancel it after all of that hype and donations