Suggestion: MGRC liaison in community dev calls

Grants
#1

Hello @MGRC,

I’m very excited to see the progress, and the planned announcement coming up.

It seems very sensible to me for MGRC to be in sync with the public development meetings / chat rooms for the Zcash protocol as well as wallet and other ecosystem. Does MGRC have a plan to participate in those meetings?

I’ve already seen some of you in some of the meetings, though I thought if that’s going to be an explicit goal it would help to share that.

Meanwhile, regardless of if the committee itself participates, it certainly seems prudent for grant recipients for related projects to participate. I plan to proactively invite grant applicants and recipients to meetings.

regards,
Nate

ps: I wasn’t sure which category on Discourse is best for messages like this. Open to suggestions.

pps: Keep up the good work! Very happy to see the progress so far.

6 Likes
#2

What are the thoughts on there being a general invitation to members (and grantees) to participate individually?

We could flip it around and have an MGRC open meeting at some frequency, as well, where outside groups could attend and talk about priorities.

2 Likes
#3

Yes!

ZOMG members, grant recipients, grant applicants, and anyone considering a grant should feel very welcome to attend the Arborist calls either simply to listen to get a feel for where protocol development is at, or to share their idea. If anyone wants to share something let me and @steven-ecc know.

That’s a great less formalized step to get cross-polination between ZOMG & grant applicants/recipients, with Arborist calls, which I’d like to see.

In 2021, I’d like to experiment a bit with the format of the Arborist call (and how it relates to other community dev calls) to make it more valuable for a wider set of participants, and this thread is just one idea we can keep noodling on.

Feel free to make suggestions for how to make Arborist calls more useful for either ZOMG or grant applicants & recipients.

ZOMG open meetings would be a good complement.

Tangent on scheduling:

If meeting load is too heavy across Zcash ecosystem, one thought is to reuse slots and have a rotating agenda, like once per quarter is “The ZOMG Showcase” meeting in lieu of the Arborist call.

One way to streamline that might be a Zcash-wide community dev calendar, where collisions or spacing issues could become more apparent.

6 Likes
#4

Yeah, if the goal is keeping ZOMG in sync with ECC’s product development priorities, the Arborist call is a good place for that, as long as there’s always a quick high level recap of priorities in addition to individual presentations.

Official two way communication for mgrc/zomg and ethics
#5

Hey, I realized we either have substantially diverging expectations for what Arborist Calls should be or we have strong agreement that Arborist Calls need to be improved or replaced:

The purpose of Arborist Calls is not to give updates on ECC’s product developments. The purpose of Arborist Calls is to be a public venue for coordinating across all stakeholders on Zcash protocol development.

Now, if in practice Arborist Calls end up just being about ECC, then that’s a signal that Arborist calls need to be altered or replaced with something that better achieves the stated purpose. Help me and ECC figure out the best way to do that!

3 Likes
#6

This sounds like it could be helpful for the Zcash community!

Keep in mind, however, that the purpose of Arborist Calls is explicitly a public meeting for all Zcash protocol stakeholders to talk about priorities, plans, needs, ask questions and collaborate on Zcash protocol.

If Arborist Calls aren’t fulfilling that purpose adequately, they should be improved or replaced.

1 Like
#7

This might be showing my ignorance but why doesnt the ECC have an “ECC” roadmap call 3 days before Arborist.

Then the first 15 minutes can be discussing how the ECC plan fits with the wider community then the rest of the time can be spent on the community.

The next ECC call they should spend 15 mins address the Arborist/mgrc comments and show how it might have changed the road map. Then the rest of the time explaining what their plans are.

as long as this doesnt end up as design by committee it seems a logical step forward.

1 Like