I want to use this opportunity to address some questions that may arise from this proposal:
Q: Why are there ten AlgoROSSA proposals?
A: I have split project AlgoROSSA into ten shards rather than submitting it as one large request because it gives voters the ability to control how much funding they want to allocate to rapidly open source software assistance. As a single, larger request, AlgoROSSA may not pass at all, but as smaller shards there is the possibility that one or more shards reach the votes threshold to pass.
As a general statement, I would support stricter rules in future xGov sessions that help prevent bad actors from submitting too many proposals.
Q: Isn’t this proposal rather vague?
A: The Algorand developer community’s needs evolve quickly over time, so it is hard to anticipate what might be the most important and urgent things that need to be built to help app developers when xGov Period 3 grants are paid. At the time of this writing, a couple of examples that I think need support are addressing SDK ssues and enhancements as well as some technical ARC standards being drafted capabilities like multisig and authentication.
As a general statement, I would support stricter rules in future xGov sessions that require proposal authors to provide thorough documentation of what they want to achieve and how they are going to do it. The now-retired AlgoGrants program, for example, required extensive grant applications that included a solution approach, technical roadmap, statement of work, market assessment, competitor analysis, pro forma budget, and information about other sources of funding received.
Q: How will the community know what was achieved if this proposal passes?
A: I will operate AlgoROSSA primarily out of the Algorand Discord server, which essentially functions as the town square for developers building on Algorand.
As a general statement, I would support stricter rules about proposals including crisp and clear success criteria by which the community can verify that the proposed outcome was delivered and by what date. I also think that there is an opportunity to create effective processes and incentives for the community to independently validate that grants have been delivered without over-reliance on the Algorand Foundation.
Q: Your “Team” section is quite short and the “Experience with Algorand” section sounds like it is a joke. What’s that about?
A: Having received three xGov grants for other projects and publicly doxxed myself, I’m a fairly well-known quantity in this process.
As a general statement, I would support stricter rules in future xGov sessions that help the community understand who they are dealing with or how a proposal author plans to staff (and maintain) the deliverable if they are not going to develop it themselves.
Q: Aren’t all of these small proposal shards likely to pass based on the way many xGov have been allocating some of their votes to every single proposal in past sessions?
A: I have no way to know how xGov Period 3’s experts are going to vote. That said, I would consider it a great result of AlgoROSSA was able to fund more–and rapid–open source software contributions that benefit the entire builder community.
As a general statement, I would support stricter rules in future xGov sessions that ensure so-called “expert” governors are thoughtfully selecting the best proposals. There may be different voting mechanisms help with this, such as ranked choices or even honeypot options that catch voters who are not mindful of what they are voting for.
Q: I’m not a developer, so can you help me understand how this benefits the whole community?
A: In the process of writing virtually all software, developers rely on decades of work by other developers who made their code available for others to use for free (see https://xkcd.com/2347/). Algorand is still a relatively new technology, and so we still have lots of little tools and solutions that need to be developed so that the next person who wants to build an app can do it faster and more easily. AlgoROSSA will assist by funding some of these solutions… rapidly.
As a general statement, I would support stricter rules in future xGov sessions for what types of proposals are eligible for community funding. In my view, grants should yield results that are globally relevant and create value in multiples, and one excellent way to achieve that is focus on open source software development rather than going to local events or liquidity for arbitrary tokens.
