Would you please explain why you think they are misleading?
cycle is a type of mainnet token, cycle_dao is as strange as icp’s dao. If they don’t know that cycle_dao is cycledao.xyz then it will affect the choice of the follower of the rate type proposal, or like dfinityNode_dao will affect the follower of the Node admin type proposal
Never thought of it that way, but I can see what you’re saying. I would hope that anyone looking to participate in governance would do their own research about each organization before choosing to follow them.
I don’t think IC_Devs is misleading. It’s an organization of IC developers that focus on improving the IC developer experience.
I feel like the best solution at the moment is to add the neuron owner website to the target neuron to indicate the neuron’s identity. Following by name is misleading, especially for new users, and the People’s Party will increase the voting weight of 1 billion virtual ICPs, which will involve a large number of web2 users in governance. Although there are few target neurons now, there may be hundreds or thousands in the future.
My hope is that once the organizations are approved that it will be easy (e.g. not an NNS proposal) to get the name changed according to the wishes of the organization. I agree with your suggestion of including a website link, so it would be nice to be able to do that by making a simple request to the NNS dApp team.
(forum requires 20 characters so here they are)*
The proposals for cycle_dao and ICPMN have passed. The proposal for ICDevs.org is still in progress and needs more votes at this time. The manual voting proposal also passed. See links below for results.
ICP Maximalist Network
Anyone of the anti-ICDevs ever explained their opposition?
Just wondering why nobody talks…
I’d like to know this as well. People are free to vote however they like, but it would be nice if they shared their grievances.
I agree with this. We all try to build and help to open source but I completely disagree with this approach.
I do understand that there’s no easy way to incentive this but I think donations will be more helpful ( even tho not enough most likely) rather than enforce it.
Sorry, my above reply was addressed to your comment.
If none of the “no” voters regarding ICDevs post here to defend their view then I’m tempted to say it was an accident or UI bug that caused the no votes, and therefore resubmitting the motion at a later date would be warranted.
Hey Villa…thanks for the concern.
First of all, this library was created before the creation of ICDevs and was an experiment(and a fairly spectacular failure of an experiment at that) at using cycle sharing as a means to finance software development.
Secondly, the library and IP has been donated to ICDevs for stewardship and we are in the process of pulling it apart, especially the base library part, into a standard open source license.
Thirdly, we believe that these kinds of licenses are inevitable on the IC and we are profoundly interested in making sure that when they emerge, they have the maximum level of openness, forkability, collaboration, and useability by independent and enterprise customers(who regularly require annoying things like complying with OFAC regulations). Further, the reality of any license enforcement is going most likely come under the jurisdiction of the NNS as we’ve already seen and started debating with the Mario issue.
Fourthly, the license, as proposed(and it is a version 0.1 on purpose) specifically tries to limit any control by a centralized custodian allowing unlimited forking with attribution and a configurable minority share committed to original creators(an attempt to mirror much of the NFT work going on to provide creators a share of the secondary or derivative market). Better ideas that protect ingenuity while encouraging openness are encouraged.
I’d suggest that working against organizations like ICDevs that are seeking to establish standards that benefit and protect developers and creators above private interests will only contribute to predatory versions emerging first and establishing a beachhead that we may not be able to push back against.
weird wont let me edit. Yeah, let me talk to some people and think about it, I may be able to change some minds
I’ve updated the text of the license noting that the library actually has the MIT License and that this is just an example. If someone wants to create a copy called example_lib.mo and actually do the work to pull out the license checks, integration, and license text from lib.mo I’m happy to accept a pull request.
Note: the preview widget has a cached version. Click through to see the note. I can’t edit the previous message.
Why not let devs experiment with various funding mechanisms and let the free market decide which ones get popular? Why should the NNS dictate what software funding mechanisms are acceptable? Isn’t freedom core to crypto?
The way I see it, ICDevs is an active group that is passionate about the IC and willing to put in work to help it succeed. This is exactly what we want NNS neuron delegates to be.
We should also want diversity of ideas among the delegates presented to NNS users, rather than only offering a narrow range of ideology.
I’m still confused why you chose to vote against this proposal. This is just a motion proposal to add ICDevs as a follow option in the NNS app. Why not share your concerns prior to the vote so we could discuss sooner?
Ok; no problem. Unfortunately I think all this does is just make it less convenient for people to follow them. They can still be followed by entering their Neuron ID manually. But I understand you wanted to bring attention to an issue you care about.
I have no affiliation with ICDevs. I just think the NNS should encourage active and passionate members to participate in governance, which I see ICDevs fitting.
Isn’t this why we’re all here?
No, I am not here to tell people how to fund their activities. I am here to govern the NNS so that people can use the IC how they wish.