[Discussion] Radicle Org Proposal 2023

👩‍⚖️ Governance ⚡ Proposal Drafts
1

Radicle Org Proposal 2023

Author(s): cloudhead, zlatan
Type: Org
Created: 2023-03-22
Status: active

Purpose

The Radicle Org aims to develop a fully-sovereign code collaboration stack called “Radicle”.

Radicle is designed to be a secure, decentralized and powerful alternative to
code forges such as GitHub and GitLab while preserving user sovereignty and freedom.

Specifically, Radicle attempts to address the following problems:

  • Platform risk
    • GitHub and others have been known to censor projects as well as shutdown developer accounts (eg. youtube-dl)
    • GitHub is closed source and its ToS allows them to change and remove functionality at will.
    • GitHub and others create lock-in via their non-git features, eg. issues, pull requests etc.
    • GitHub trains Copilot on user data without consent.
    • GitHub and others can choose to monetize any feature at any time, requiring users to pay for something they weren’t paying for before.
    • GitHub and others are built as monolithic platforms that are not adaptable and changeable by users.
  • Open access
    • GitHub and others are not available in all countries due to trade embargos and require an account
      for interacting with the platform.
  • Privacy
    • GitHub and others have access to all private user repositories.
  • Data ownership
    • GitHub and others own their user’s data and this data is not part of the git repository, hence it cannot be migrated.
  • Security
    • By not using cryptography, GitHub’s security model allows hackers and/or employees to forge user data
      without evidence to the user.
  • Availability
    • When GitHub or GitLab are down, there is no possible access to the service. Only the source code remains accessible.

By providing the following solutions:

  • Users are able to run their own nodes without reliance on any third parties. They cannot be de-platformed.
  • All social artifacts (eg. comments, issues etc.) are stored in git, and thus easy to migrate, backup and
    access both online and offline. Users own their data.
  • Radicle is always available, since it is local-first. Users don’t need internet access to carry out a majority of tasks.
  • Radicle uses public-key cryptography throughout the product and protocol, removing the need for trust in third-parties.
    Every social artifact or piece of code can be verified by anyone.
  • Radicle plans to add end-to-end encryption to git repositories, protecting all user data from third-parties.
  • Radicle is open source and permissibly licensed.
  • Radicle is censorship resistant: any node on the network can choose to host a radicle repository and make it
    available to others.
  • Radicle is an open protocol that can change and adapt to user needs and a changing world.

Annual Strategy & Quarterly Objectives

Objectives

  • Get closer to GitHub core feature parity.
    • This is the primary goal, and is elaborated on in the Roadmap section.
    • GitHub’s core features are considered to be:
      • Repository hosting
      • Issues
      • Pull Requests
      • Actions (CI/CD)
      • User profiles
      • Orgs
      • Search
      • Notifications
  • Stabilize the technology stack
    • Stabilize the protocol specification via Radicle Improvement Proposals (RIPs).
    • Stabilize reference implementation (heartwood).
    • Add any required supporting features to the web.
  • Relaunch (social-)media presence
    • Launch a technical blog
      • Promote to the FOSS/Linux communities.
    • Re-launch website
    • Re-launch Twitter account
    • Build a presence on decentralized media (eg. mastodon, nostr)

Roadmap

  • Q1: Initial Heartwood release
    • Move core team collaboration to radicle stack
    • Implement Patches, Issues, Repositories
    • Finish first draft of new brand design
  • Q2: External/public release to “community”
    • Focused on FOSS communities, P2P, Bitcoin
    • Code Review functionality
      • This includes inline comments and discussions around code.
    • Overhaul of app.radicle.xyz application using new brand
      • New landing page.
      • Patches & Issues.
      • Basic repository discovery.
    • Community seed node
      • Users can specify whether or not they want to be “tracked”
  • Q3: Identities
    • Initial R&D on Radicle Identities
      • The goal is for users to have an easy way to associate metadata
        to their DID, eg. avatar, name, links etc. in a peer-to-peer way.
  • Q4: CI/CD
    • Launch of CI/CD functionality in Radicle
      • We intend to launch our own take on CI/CD that runs peer-to-peer.

If time permits, we will also work on:

  • Launch of Secure artifacts
    • We intend to launch our own take of GitHub “Releases”. This can be
      described as a way of doing cryptographically-secure binary releases
      using Radicle’s trust model.

Organizational Structure

Legal structure

Corporate entity based in Switzerland.

Contributors

  • @cloudhead – project lead – full-time
  • @zlatan – project & community management – part-time
  • @rudolfs – software engineering on web – full-time
  • @sebastinez – software engineering on web – full-time
  • @dave – software engineer on heartwood – full-time
  • @slackcoder – software engineering on heartwood – part-time
  • @erikli – software engineering on heartwood – part-time
  • @fintohaps – software engineering on heartwood – full-time
  • @adaszko – systems operations on heartwood – full-time

Communication

Reporting & Success Criteria

The primary objective for this year is to stabilize the stack and get closer to feature parity
with other forges. However, some metrics will be used internally to track growth:

  • Number of repositories published on the network
  • Number of nodes online
  • Commit activity on published repositories
  • Social activity (patches, discussions, issues, etc.)
  • “Key” projects using Radicle
  • Number of members on Zulip
  • Number of contributors to core stack

Timeline & Budget

The total budget requested for 2023 is $1,804,378.

Cost May 2023 Jun 2023 Jul 2023 Aug 2023 Sep 2023 Oct 2023 Nov 2023 Dec 2023 Totals
Development costs $190,918 $190,918 $190,918 $190,918 $190,918 $190,918 $190,918 $190,918 $1,527,343
Buffer $19,091 $19,091 $19,091 $19,091 $19,091 $19,091 $19,091 $19,091 $152,734
Offsites $24,000 $24,000 $48,000
Set up costs $23,100 $23,100
Operational fees $6,650 $6,650 $6,650 $6,650 $6,650 $6,650 $6,650 $6,650 $53,200
Total $239,759 $240,659 $216,659 $216,659 $216,659 $216,659 $240,659 $216,659 $1,804,378
  • Development costs: contributor pay for a team of ~12, R&D costs
  • Buffer: 10% of the development costs as buffer, covers hosting & services
  • Offsites: we plan on having two offsites this year
  • Set up costs: initial costs of setting up legal structure
  • Operational fees: payment processing for fiat payment

This includes room to hire two more engineers and one designer. Unused budget will be carried over to the next year.

Fund management

  • DAO funds will be received on a 3:2 multisig (Safe)
  • Funds to be paid in fiat will be exchanged and transfered to the orgs’s bank account
  • Payouts will be done by the company accountant on a monthly basis
3 Likes
2

Do you have descriptions for these roles already? Where should people reach out if they are interested in applying?

3

Thanks for the writeup @cloudhead! A couple thoughts & questions:

Can you elaborate on what the Radicle “stack” is actually composed of? I remember you have a great diagram somewhere… Could you include it here and just do a quick overview of the technical components?

I feel like this objective could be tightened up a bit. “Get closer” can be construed in many different ways. Can you structure the objective to be a bit more definitive on what features you aim to implement vs. just research/explore in 2023?

What type of corporate entity?

Can the community expect quarterly reporting on these objectives?

What kind of engineers are you planning on hiring?

Can you elaborate on who will be the signers on the multisig?

4

Hi @cloudhead

  • I wanted to check in on the breakdown of the set up costs because I think they seem quite high?
  • You mentioned on the call about branding/ marketing but I can’t see this separate on the budget, is this going to be provided by the Foundation Marketing Committee?
  • Also, as per @abbey’s question on the multisig as it would be good to see the transparency here.
    Thanks, Sally
1 Like
5

Hi @cloudhead,

Really exciting to see this proposal come together and get a clearer sense for where Radicle will be by the end of 2023. I will offer up some comments here as well.

Could you indicate more clearly which Github “core features” will be priority for Radicle in addressing in 2023? It would be just more reader friendly to include “[2023]” besides the ones you will focus on this year (instead of jumping between this and the Roadmap). This would also help clarify what “get closer to GitHub core feature parity” means and answer how close.

Because this proposal helps to clarify how we are separating out the projects (Radicle vs Drips), it would be really helpful for you to specify which website (radicle.xyz), Twitter account (@radicle), etc.

Since Q1 has passed, should the roadmap be adapted?

I think it’s worth clarifying that this corporate entity is not owned by the RadicleDAO - and therefore is in a position to be a “supplier” to the RadicleDAO to fulfill this proposal. What is the management structure? How do we ensure that a corporate entity returns unused funds to the RadicleDAO? If you are the owner, what happens to the funds in the company in the event of your death?

What will numbers be that indicate “success”? How will reporting actually take place so that the Radicle Org can be help accountable for its use of these requested funds from the RadicleDAO?

I agree with @sllyllyd that these setup costs seem high. What’s included here?

Are most contributors being paid in fiat? And, therefore, that is why these processing-to-fiat costs are high?

Does this make sense? I think it would make more sense to grant RadicleDAO funds to a corporate entity if there was clear indication that unused 2023 funds would be returned and then a new proposal for 2024 would be funded. This would set a better precedence for holding Orgs accountable and enable cleaner accounting for how the RadicleDAO is using its funds throughout the ecosystem.

6

Do you have descriptions for these roles already? Where should people reach out if they are interested in applying?

I don’t. For now, we are doing the reaching out.

7

Can you elaborate on what the Radicle “stack” is actually composed of?

This information is now on https://radicle.xyz

I feel like this objective could be tightened up a bit.

See roadmap for the actual features.

What type of corporate entity?

It’s called a Sárl

Can the community expect quarterly reporting on these objectives?

Yes, at the DAO-wide calls.

What kind of engineers are you planning on hiring?

Most likely one frontend and one or two backend.

Can you elaborate on who will be the signers on the multisig?

Right now it’s just me, eventually might be other council members.

8
  • I wanted to check in on the breakdown of the set up costs because I think they seem quite high?

I will bring this down by $20k actually.

  • You mentioned on the call about branding/ marketing but I can’t see this separate on the budget, is this going to be provided by the Foundation Marketing Committee?

It’s negligible, so I haven’t included, it’ll be covered with the buffer.

Also, as per @abbey’s question on the multisig as it would be good to see the transparency here.

See my response to abbey :slight_smile:

9

Could you indicate more clearly which Github “core features” will be priority for Radicle in addressing in 2023?

This is all covered in the roadmap: Code browsing, issues, patches, CI.

Since Q1 has passed, should the roadmap be adapted?

I can remove the Q1 bullet point I guess?

I think it’s worth clarifying that this corporate entity is not owned by the RadicleDAO - and therefore is in a position to be a “supplier” to the RadicleDAO to fulfill this proposal.

Does the DAO own any entity?

What is the management structure?

I will be managing it. There’s no other management structure.

How do we ensure that a corporate entity returns unused funds to the RadicleDAO?

We don’t, as mentioned, the funds will be rolled over.

If you are the owner, what happens to the funds in the company in the event of your death?

I didn’t optimize for this scenario, as it’s unlikely.

What will numbers be that indicate “success”? How will reporting actually take place so that the Radicle Org can be help accountable for its use of these requested funds from the RadicleDAO?

Growth of the numbers will indicate success, though only partly as making the technology more reliable will be the other big success.

Are most contributors being paid in fiat? And, therefore, that is why these processing-to-fiat costs are high?

Yes, I would say so.

Does this make sense? I think it would make more sense to grant RadicleDAO funds to a corporate entity if there was clear indication that unused 2023 funds would be returned and then a new proposal for 2024 would be funded. This would set a better precedence for holding Orgs accountable and enable cleaner accounting for how the RadicleDAO is using its funds throughout the ecosystem.

It’s equivalent in terms of trust and accounting, but more work to send the funds back. This seems a lot simpler. At the end of the year, there will be an amount of funds unspent that’ll be deducted from the nex year’s payout.

10

I’ve moved this to formal review, with a bunch of edits based on the feedback above: [Formal Review][RGP - 14] - Start the Radicle Org

1 Like