Both. Developers are interested in different things.
- Some want to do original research and don’t want to have to integrate with an existing framework. I would recommend funding it if it brings value to zcash.
- Others like to assemble pieces and create something greater than the sum of its parts.
I think zcash can benefit from both kinds of devs and they don’t have to be the same person/team.
As an independent dev, I plan to contribute as much as I can to any project I can. I think other members of ZOMG can if they want. In fact, I don’t see how what they do in their free time is any of my business as long as it does not interfere with their duties.
But I did offer to communicate openly. This goes along with my pledge for more transparency from ZOMG and the grantees.
I have managed teams from 1 (me) to hundreds. Obviously, the approach varies. Since time is limited and 1h / week isn’t much, I intend to communicate mostly through management tools.
For instance, I think project managers could use a project tracking system such as Trello, Jira, Redmine, or Phabricator. We could open read access to the community and it would serve as a reporting tool as well.
This grant came with a track record. As such, my evaluation was not out of context. Besides, I researched similar implementations to better gauge the project.
IMO, the ZOMG does not have the time/resources to do a lot more than vetting. It is the responsibility of the grantees to present their best case. For instance, in the proposal you mention, I think they have to justify why it takes 4 senior devs 6 months to do an email project.
It could have been a major project, i.e. Gmail is way more than 4 devs / 6 months, but also much less. This is related to my pledge of “request more detailed planning and deliverables”.
Sure, but it cuts both ways. For example, originally the Moeda.casa proposal seemed too vague and fuzzy to me. I expressed my concerns. They came back with a more concrete proposal. I think devs appreciate constructive feedback (I do). I support their new proposal.
From my side, the code is written and tested. I didn’t request payment of the remaining 60% of the grant yet - though I feel I would be justified in doing so.
Currently, I’m standing by for NU-5 because I’d like to add Orchard support and UA ( even though the grant was only about sapling ).
Finally, I hope we can savage by integrating with another payment gateway: BTCPay. I think that even if CoinPayments never comes back, we will have a zcash shielded payment option so I wouldn’t call it a failure.
You raise a good point about attracting peers or applicants. I think the ZOMG can help but it is not its primary mandate. It can sponsor videos, documentaries, etc. and it helps. But I think ultimately, we need more involvement from ECC/ZF.
For example, another project I follow, Mina Protocol, has frequent podcasts, explainer videos, live chats, and blogs from their leaders. I think it helps a lot when the author is the CEO, CTO, COO, … vs a less known person. The message could be the same but it has more clout.
My second suggestion is to invest in the documentation. We are in a transition period (NU-5) and the team is under a lot of pressure, so I understand this is not the priority now. For example, an article like
about Halo2 would be great.
Finally, we want to attract high quality projects not just any project. I think we need to be professional but also firm.