@artkor I’m so glad to hear this from you.
I hear you that you regret the need to recuse yourself in this instance. I understand that. I personally also regret the decision to recuse myself and my team from doing further development work on the btcpay module after we review it again. I know my team does good work and that we’d be a good fit for its future development. But I made the decision anyway because I realized that structurally, it doesn’t set the right precedent unless we recuse.
The team that reviews it shouldn’t be the team that builds it. Even if I know that I am approaching this with integrity (which I am !), and even if I can convince everyone that I am approaching this with integrity, I still have a structural conflict of interest.
In the same way, someone who builds it shouldn’t make the decision about whether it gets reviewed.
I know it’s more of a gray area for you @artkor because you’ve only contributed to the documentation for the module. However, lack of proper documentation was one of the original bullet point critiques in our 2022 analysis of the module. So our proposed review will include a direct assessment of your work.
Okay. All that being said, here’s my updated proposal based on my updated understanding of the situation:
I propose that the definition of Conflict Of Interest be expanded to include the situation where someone has contributed to a project and then is in the position of discussing & voting on decisions regarding that project. [I’m sure there’s a more articulate legal way to phrase this, but I’m hoping someone else can take it from here.]
All of us for the betterment of Zcash,
Sunny