15:12:10 meeting in 48min > <@redsh4de:matrix.org> So, website workgroup meeting regarding the CCS page overhaul. How does a week from now sound? 15:44:29 should probably put up a meta issue 15:44:40 I dont think anyone knows about the meeting :D 15:45:09 I can go in chat and yell about it if you want 15:47:23 in other channels* 15:52:01 @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: right, forgot about that... 15:54:24 we're three to have forgot don't worry 15:54:49 if everyone forgot, then no one forgot 15:54:53 👍️ 15:56:27 https://github.com/monero-project/meta/issues/1361 15:56:27 better late than never :P 15:59:19 1 minute left 15:59:27 * moderation intensifies * 16:00:58 alright... meeting time! 16:01:04 1. Greetings 16:01:18 Hello 16:01:20 Hello ladies and gents 16:01:29 don't forget agents 16:01:38 they are a thing now 16:02:01 hi opus and claude 16:02:45 cc luigi111 @diego:cypherstack.com 16:03:06 hi I'm alive 16:07:05 hello! 16:07:05 so, @syntheticbird:monero.social and myself are planning to extend the new design of the new site page to the CCS. Page would be made in Astro, re-use a lot of the design components 16:07:05 Initially, the idea was just to make a new frontend design and leave it at that, but there were some ideas about adding new features - ability to track a users ccs proposal history being one of them, ability to specify "funding types" - time based, milestone, etc, and just cleaner UX while still keeping it git-based. Ad[... more lines follow, see https://mrelay.p2pool.observer/e/1oDJ9fMKb1VScnVQ ] 16:07:44 Syn's proposal drafting the UX for proposal pages: https://repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/ccs-proposals/-/merge_requests/644 16:08:12 My proposal with some in-progress drafts and tech stack ideas with reasons behind each: https://repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/ccs-proposals/-/merge_requests/641 16:08:28 @syntheticbird:monero.social: anything you'd like to add? 16:10:35 Just that beyond new features, navigation and UX, the new informations we would like to add in the proposal page, like funding type, have the objective of a better transparency for donors of the CCS. That's really a main objective here to let a maximum of information without having to explore gitlab. 16:11:49 The timeline idea is also very important in that regard, Ironically, The CCS website supports no JS users, but they can't find update there 16:12:02 They are obligated to go on gitlab for consulting progress. 16:12:50 progress means comments from the developer, confirmation that transactions are sent, etc... 16:13:27 that's about it. happy to answer any questions 16:16:27 would it be a fair summary to say that the CCS page would end up being more or less a user-friendly mirror, for what is going on in Gitlab? 16:16:27 Proposers would only have to to interact with gitlab as far as submitting a proposal and any other "write" actions 16:16:45 yep 16:17:16 that's exactly it 16:17:37 hmmm 16:17:42 seems neat 16:19:25 Milestome requests are usually commented, but transaction confs arent > <@syntheticbird> progress means comments from the developer, confirmation that transactions are sent, etc... 16:20:18 luigi updates the md to add payout amount and date - this info (payout dates and milestones) are on current ccs site 16:22:15 @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: Yes. Luigi sometimes (i would have hoped more) happens to inform in comment the transaction id of the payout. If he do, then it is showed in the timeline, if not, then an event is created without it, from the md 16:22:34 What isnt there is the comments, and imo i dont think we want to mirror comments onto the main website. The comment sections can get pretty ugly depending on the proposal 16:22:52 @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: We aren't planning on mirroring the comments 16:23:09 @syntheticbird: the data updates could be automated by a bot as well - luigi could pay out, then do something like @ccs-bot confirm-payment M1 - it would then update the md to add payout and date which would then be reflected by the site 16:23:14 @syntheticbird: The only time txs are commented is when it its sonething like the fcmo++ research ccs and there are mulltiple recipients and milestoens arent being closed out 16:23:16 Only the updates, moderator selected ones 16:23:42 @redsh4de:matrix.org: Absolutely 16:23:58 @redsh4de:matrix.org: Lololololo 16:24:26 @syntheticbird: gud 16:24:50 @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: im loling at asking luigo to do more 16:25:55 especially commenting txids etc. He manually updates multiple ccs's with payout amounts and dates. Txids are also probably a privacy issue 16:26:02 At least pre-fcmp 16:26:27 pre-fcmp, proposers are sharing their address, so that's already compromised 16:26:46 @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: wouldn't that make him do less? :P wouldn't have to manually dig around the .md as a result, tag the bot with commands like @ccs-bot for anything - move to funding, close, update proposal, etc 16:26:57 If you know the txid, you know the amount and potential real spend of that txid 16:27:29 W/o the txid, you have no idea which on-chain tx is associated with the user 16:27:35 @redsh4de:matrix.org: would have a access control list obv 16:27:58 @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: That is fair. 16:27:58 @redsh4de:matrix.org: The md has to be updated for these actions 16:28:23 Then we can provide a mechanism for users to confirm that they received the transaction. 16:28:37 And its stored on git. Unless the bot is making commits, i dont think its a replacement 16:28:40 s/users/proposers 16:29:02 @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: Yeah, i mean that the bot would have write access 16:29:11 otherwise wouldn't be any good 16:29:11 Idk if that would fly 16:29:44 I think plowsof and luigi are the only ones with write access, and luigi is the only one permitted to commit directly 16:31:06 I'm paranoid and dont like the idea of using a bot to commit directly 16:32:49 There is always a solution to automate. But ideas are limited to what luigi and plowsof are willing to use. The use of bot that can optionally be audited, seems to us like the best way of extending the current system. 16:33:23 But ideas are limited to what we suppose* 16:34:01 it could be a small self-hosted service that runs in parallel with the gitlab instance 16:34:01 access-controlled to only allow actions from specific user ids (i.e. plowsof or luigi) 16:34:01 all that would be needed would be setting up a access token for a repo (with granular permissions obv), have the service use that token - then set up a webhook that fires on comments? maybe then infer which proposal it was run on - and then would just automate what luigi does manually 16:35:07 Its not automated though? 16:35:29 If he has to comment 16:35:29 send 16.6xmr on feb 26 2026 16:35:34 Thays not any easier than updating the md manually 16:35:53 (afaict) 16:36:09 Maybe he can respond when he sees this 16:37:00 @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: yes, frankfully we need his input on it 16:37:45 Eapecially since some proposals this doesnt work with 16:37:52 Like fcmp++ research 16:37:56 well - kind of. i definitely don't think sending of funds should be automated, thats a whoole another security issue 16:37:56 if he comments something like @ccs-bot confirm-payment M1 for milestone-based proposals - the bot can just read the amount info from the frontmatter, update the .md with the date the command was invoked, etc 16:38:01 Payments are sent w/o milestones being claimed 16:38:09 @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: yeah that would require something else 16:38:23 but those are kind of exceptions to the rule so those could be done manually still 16:38:36 Funding Type -> Pool 16:38:41 It happens all the time though 16:38:57 He often sends multiple payments at once etv 16:39:09 etv? 16:39:11 the bot stuff is a nice-to-have though - not a must, doesn't change anything for proposers only can make maintainers lives a liitle bit easier only if executed right 16:39:13 etc got it 16:39:16 etc* 16:39:37 I think this ^ > <@syntheticbird> yes, frankfully we need his input on it 16:39:54 same 16:40:05 @redsh4de:matrix.org: A lot of stuff in the CCS have became usage yet the solution for doing it is still annoying in the long-term. 16:40:10 Also some proposers like vt do their own MRs to update their proposal milestones 16:40:42 So his proposals show completed milestones before payments 16:41:07 In the timeline we make a distinction between milestone completed and payment 16:41:38 hell, i'm hesitating to make an event "milestone claimed" instead just so we can have another event for saying it is contested 16:42:28 maybe the event could be queued and needs to be approved... but thats just the same merge request then 16:44:05 I'm afraid that would justify a reject because plowsof or luigi don't wanna have to approve it. 16:44:19 Ideally it should be automated and built solely on the gitlab MR timeline 16:44:36 So gitlab comments and tracking of the md file 16:45:20 if not using bot, Just track the md, since thats gospel 16:45:28 The md cant/wont be updated if not approved 16:45:31 yeah, we can send out webhook events upon changes to a file 16:46:04 https://docs.gitlab.com/user/project/integrations/webhook_events/ 16:46:09 @redsh4de:matrix.org: If that is not possible there could always be a cache and polling solution 16:46:20 @syntheticbird: Can even just monitor luigis acti>ity rss feed :P 16:46:42 @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: yo that's a good idea, i completely forgot rss 16:47:04 ideally not hardcoding a user would better however 16:47:22 We montitor binary's to know when generalfund donates to a proposal 16:47:50 polling or is it streamed somehow? idk how RSS works too well 16:47:53 @syntheticbird: Well, luigi is the only one merging anything or commiting directly 16:48:02 @redsh4de:matrix.org: in RSS case, polled 16:48:06 @redsh4de:matrix.org: You'd poll the rss feed fot updates 16:48:50 @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: fair 16:49:31 anyway i think there is a lot of solution but we need luigi approval on that. One other topic is the addition of fields in the md file 16:49:31 hmmm... this is me being pedantic but i like the webhook approach (respond to event) vs polling (look for event) better 16:49:31 can maybe do both like i had outlined in my proposal, and prioritize webhook if available, otherwise could poll the RSS 16:49:56 right, to seperate the types of the proposal 16:50:09 @redsh4de:matrix.org: of course i prefer webhook too. Just searching fallback in case there is a disagreement somehow 16:50:56 @redsh4de:matrix.org: authors too 16:51:07 A proposal should be able to support multiple authors 16:51:24 @syntheticbird: i think we dont like that 16:51:52 oh 16:51:55 was it brought up in the past? 16:51:57 there have been a few proposals with multiple authors that fell apart due to no one taking responsibility 16:52:09 Pointing fingers at their partner etc 16:52:29 Yea. The "author" now should be the one owning responsibility 16:52:35 yeah i remember reading a few of those when lurking, makes sense 16:52:44 And the payouts go to the author for them to deal with 16:53:12 Fair. That again was for transparency of who was behind a proposal. Maybe we can add a co-author field then 16:53:30 Not 2 diff authors fighting over who did what and attempting to clain milestones for other peoples work, or abandoning some milestones while author2 completes their work 16:53:31 then we would know who is owning responsibility 16:53:35 sounds like a good middle ground 16:53:57 The biggest example was the infighting with mj and endor and the crumbling of the soloptxmr ccs 16:54:28 Mj claiming that he wants pay for endors work, endor not completibg his milestones, mj getting paid in full to abandon the ccs 16:55:15 interesting 16:55:40 Initially mj had claimed that he would complete the ccs regardless of whether endor delivered. In the end, mj wanted pay for all of his own completed milestones (and was paid), and the ccs was left in limbo, unfinished 16:55:47 Where it still is today 16:56:08 and now drones are targeting solar panels, final nail in the coffin 16:56:32 rip 16:56:42 im sure one day humans would be a good energy source for mining 16:56:53 i'm not an ai 16:57:00 @redsh4de:matrix.org: the seperate types would be milestone-based and time-based iirc - any other im forgetting? 16:57:20 Pool too 16:57:25 for cases like FCMP++ research 16:57:41 and that's about it 16:57:57 events are prepaid 16:58:47 or, i guess, sometines repaid 16:58:58 you mean events like c3 or monerokon? 16:59:02 Yeh 16:59:15 They could fallbunder time-based maybe 16:59:45 We can add a category 16:59:52 But time-based is more for N-months work on X proposals 17:00:06 not sure what name to choose tho 17:00:07 @syntheticbird: My memory isnt good enough to remember our convo 17:00:22 Getting old 17:00:27 me too 17:00:39 dw, it's just beam from space into our brain 17:01:08 https://plowsof.github.io/chatgpt-ccs-proposal-form.html 17:01:20 ah, what about retroactive ones? are those still a thing? 17:01:28 Do you guys have mockups outside of whats on syn's ccs 17:01:42 @redsh4de:matrix.org: Yes but those are an additional tag 17:01:50 @redsh4de:matrix.org: Yea. Retroactive and prepaid are both a thing 17:02:06 @syntheticbird: yeah i think just tagging solves it 17:02:11 @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: for the website design have some screenshots on mine 17:03:19 Ok maybe diego can discuss with luigi about backend changes and then diego + community can talk about the frontend designs 17:03:39 @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: do you tihnk its possible to have a retroactive ccs with no progress to be seen 17:03:50 No 17:03:51 like literally it's finished 17:03:58 Oh 17:04:03 Yes 17:04:19 The fcmp++ paper was retroactive 17:04:21 plowsof: nice, i like this concept, could be something to integrate for ease of use for proposers 17:04:42 ok well then i'm not sure if we should make a new type "finished" and retroactive or just tag retroactive with 1 milestone 17:05:27 An additional point of discussion we forgot is view transition introduction in the website. > <@ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> Ok maybe diego can discuss with luigi about backend changes and then diego + community can talk about the frontend designs 17:05:31 but that is related to my CCS only 17:05:42 https://mrelay.p2pool.observer/m/mozilla.org/f4d4d3fa5941ebd97ea0ff12e389b52d70a409d62037939191970529280.png (image.png) 17:05:46 The retroactive proposals would have the milestone marked as completed, yeah. Ideally the community woukd ve aware of the proposal before it is in the idea stage 17:05:57 ‘’layout: wip‘’ 17:06:06 Iike "i plan to do abc. Will request funding if successfull" 17:06:11 not layout:fr? 17:06:20 @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: Understood 17:06:40 Like dangerousfreedom's current ccs. Its a single milestone, and wont be claimed until successful. Its essentially retroactive 17:07:28 DFs is an exception though, because the funds are already available 17:07:46 btw 17:07:49 in this case we don't even need a seperate tag - if the proposal is in the funding stage with a completed milestone the page can infer that it is retroactive > <@ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> The retroactive proposals would have the milestone marked as completed, yeah. Ideally the community woukd ve aware of the proposal before it is in the idea stage 17:07:58 There is a mock up for a fund calculation section in the proposal page 17:08:15 Which shows in an intuitive manner the calculation of the price of the proposal. 17:08:35 Some people (jeffro, myself, 0xfff) dont price in $ 17:08:37 This would ideally be converted by the frontend if it detects a section with the correct syntax. Tbd 17:08:54 @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: don't worry it will be versatile enough 17:09:14 Some aggresively price in dollars and will adjust their proposal 10x before merge if the price changes 17:09:44 And some have been known to abandon their proposals if the $ amount falls, but to happily accept price appreciation :d 17:09:46 @redsh4de:matrix.org: That is fair. 17:10:01 s/fair/great idea 17:10:23