[Discussion][RGP-22] - Start the Radworks Seed Network (RSN) Org

[shelb_ee]

Thanks for the quick reply @lftherios! My responses to a few things below:

@lftherios

• this is a different service that is built on top of Radicle.
• we do not need any particular operational support from the Radicle org. In fact this is one of the main arguments of separating these efforts. The Radicle team should focus on the Radicle protocol and the RSN team on its retrieval services.
• it’s imo very important that the Radicle protocol team treats all node operators equally vs prioritising one set of node operators.

Thanks for elaborating on the distinction between the teams - this is helpful.

@lftherios

I think we need to collectively revisit this definition, as it doesn’t apply to the current orgs. For instance the Radicle org depends on the Foundation org for maintaining the Radicle trademarks as well as its domain names. This was a conscious decision (not an afterthought). Also the Foundation org is not developing any technology at the moment.

@abbey

the Radicle Org isn’t explicitly just the protocol team. It’s technically currently responsible for UX, product development, onboarding, community support, and exploring its own sustainability. I believe a re-scoping of the Radicle Org might be necessary to clarify the role of Radworks as a funder & supporter of the Radicle ecosystem.

We are working on revisiting these definitions and trying to map out a discussion that can be had on the forum around this topic. Getting consensus on these definitions should remain a priority, as not having clear definitions has already proven to be crippling to effective community discussion.

@cloudhead

I’d just like to chime in to say that I have enough responsibilities currently and don’t need more

Also need to clarify what it would actually mean to have a Team within an Org and what the responsibilities would actually look like. The way a Team is described in the former Grants proposal draft (see version 6 under Reporting & Success Criteria), a lot of the responsibility around reporting & management would actually lie within the Teams, not the Org Leads. Abbey and I are also on this though and will be a part of the bigger discussion we want to facilitate.

@lftherios

We will be part of the Radicle community, similarly to hopefully hundreds of other developers. This team should not have any special privileges with regards to the Radicle org. We want the Radicle protocol to remain neutral to all node operators.

This is also a helpful distinction! Maybe make this clearer in the next draft of the proposal?

@abbey

My main concerns revolve around implementation

@lftherios

I have budgeted for 10 hours a week (that’s all I can provide for now) in

@abbey

With the official publicly-stated deadline for Radicle 1.0 release being end of Q1, I feel that taking a more iterative and progressive approach to bootstrapping this work is more appropriate, so we can remain light and adaptive pre-stable release.

I second @abbey and her concerns around the hefty implementation that would be required to set this up as proposed alongside the very short timeline (we are already half way through Q1). I really like her idea of leveraging a Grant to at least get a partnership with a 3rd party provider setup quickly before the end of Q1 so that the support is there when Radicle 1.0 launches.

That being said, I also agree with her that it would - in the long run - make sense to form a new Org to develop third-party seed node services. Just given the short timeline before Radicle 1.0 launch, your stated availability and the reality of setting this all up - it may not make sense right now if we want to serve the immediate goal of supporting onboarding for Radicle 1.0 launch.

@lftherios

High relative to what?

I guess relative to what I thought it would be. But I didn’t calculate in a marketing budget, offsite costs tbh.

@lftherios

The way I imagine it, it will be a subset of all Radicle users and potentially an additional audience that the Radicle p2p protocol can’t market to / isn’t relevant as is. That’s why I have allocated a marketing budget.

Hmm…I wonder if it would make more sense to first prove the service/value to Radicle and then invest in expanding marketing to others? Or generally get it setup first before pushing marketing? Just want to make sure we don’t put the cart before the horse with spending money on marketing for a service that has not been setup yet.

In any case, it would be great if you could add this detail to the next version of the proposal.

@lftherios

It’s 3 full-time senior engineering hires (including one team lead)+ my time until the team is fully operational without me.

Also good to know - please include this detail in the next version of your proposal so it is clear what folks are voting to fund regarding the team.