Strangelove as IBC Repository Maintainer Coordinator

Introduction: The Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) protocol is a crucial component of the Cosmos ecosystem, enabling seamless interoperability between different Cosmos networks. Over the past year, the following teams have experienced significant difficulty bringing new and important features to IBC, or have suffered because features aren’t visible or cannot easily be maintained. • Notional • SDK 46 • Field length limits • Irisnet • IBC NFTs and SDK 46 • Strangelove • Packet forward middleware • ICQ • WASM Clients • Quasar • ICQ • Composable • WASM Clients • Cosmos Hub • Packet forward middleware The entire ecosystem loses when it is difficult to contribute to a key software repository. It is our opinion that if this work was easily discoverable: • New SDK versions would get wider reach • Cosmos chains would ship ICQ and PFM by default • The list of chains using the work described above would be at least a dozen chains long and more likely three dozen chains • The work would be more mature because it would have been used in production • Use of even just ICQ and PFM in production would expand the IBC economy • Use of…

Excerpt (1196 of 4385 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Hey so I just wanted to add a little detail to this, here is where I first discussed this concept: Use governance for software development processes Research Hi So this is a thought on software development processes, and governance, and where they intersect. Github is currently a hard dependency, more or less Github permissioning limits the decentralization of this work Permissioning could be related to VotePower of validators or to a governance proposal Imagine a governance proposal to determine the contents of this file: How could we make it such that Gaia chooses her own maintainers? gov props that choose CODEOWNERS all val… I think that it is very important that: Repositories be grouped by function like: • No one uses IAVL, ledger-cosmos-go, and cosmos-db without the SDK, therefore put all of them in the SDK • No one uses cometbft-db without cometbft, therefore put cometbft-db in cometbft • The vast majority of IBC enabled chains built using the cosmos SDK will want packet forward middleware, ICQ, and WASM clients, therefore those tools should go directly into the IBC go repository Benefits of this approach • Faster…

Excerpt (1190 of 1987 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I’ve been thinking a lot about the question, “ how can we achieve an effective decentralized development model at the Hub? “

We have Informal, Binary, StrangeLove, Iqlusion, and now Notional active at the hub.

Coordinating & collaborating is non-trivial.

I have been thinking about tools such as: shared Slack, Ethereum EIP system, better role clarity (eg 1 org does MEV, 1 does IBC, 1 does ICS, etc), dedicated developer days where all 5 orgs can be around a table together to liaise.

It feels like this proposal moves in the right direction:

• it clarifies roles & responsibilities for one of the 5 orgs in 1 functional area
• it proposes a specific scope of work re improving the IBC repository
• it proposes a 2nd org keeping up to speed & overseeing the repository (which seems a good practice for these important public goods)

Just so that you know, I’m definitely advocating for functional crossovers between the organizations. Just for example, SL should not be restricted to working on IBC and in addition to that, I have no interest in seeing the current IBC team displaced. This is instead a policy decision born out of about 18 months of personal frustration that I recently learned is shared widely with the community.

It seems to me that we are shipping highly strategic software more slowly than we should and that is specifically because of how we are administering the repository. That is why quite specifically, I am interested not in seeing SL be the sole maintainer but instead coordinate a team of maintainers.

These dedicated in person days would be pretty expensive but they’d also likely be worth it, highly worthy idea.

Thank you Better,

I agree and look forward to your contribution to a much needed coordination framework.

We support cosmos hub governance as the caretaker of the cosmos GitHub, as it provides a more transparent line of accountability for maintenance than the existing off-chain agreements. We also support nominating Strangelove as the first Maintainer Coordinator.

Very Big +. Great idea. Once tested after few months, we should consider other core projects to be (again?) multi-team oriented.

I am wondering why the current ICF/Interchain team cannot do that?
They could as well apply these multi-team principles, but I don’t understand why the need to change the maintainer.

Moreover, I don’t even think the Hub can decide that anyway.

Hi everyone, I’m Susannah. I am the product lead of the talented ibc-go team at the Interchain Foundation. Thank you for raising this proposal. While the Interchain Foundation stands behind, endorses, and continues to pursue decentralised contributions to the Interchain stack via both fiscal and human resources, we feel that the stated goal of maintaining the highest quality ibc-go repo and the points stated in this proposal diverge. In everything we do, we keep in mind that ibc-go is fundamental infrastructure securing millions in value transfer, and it is vital to the entire ecosystem that we prioritise security over speed of development. LitBit: Over the past year, the following teams have experienced significant difficulty bringing new and important features to IBC, or have suffered because features aren’t visible or cannot easily be maintained. Notional SDK 46 Field length limits Irisnet IBC NFTs and SDK 46 Strangelove Packet forward middleware ICQ WASM Clients Quasar ICQ Composable WASM Clients Cosmos Hub Packet forward middleware The contributions and features mentioned above are both meaningful and accessible to teams that…

Excerpt (1199 of 3007 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I disapprove of this proposal and voice my support for the existing IBC team. The members of which do not frequent youtube videos or podcasts, or permeate your daily twitter feed, but continuously ship stable high quality protocols which work so flawlessly that you and I have the privilege of taking them for granted.

Furthermore, I implore you to entertain the inverse thought experiment. Perhaps the fastidious rigor, surgical meticulousness, and prophylactic acuity practiced by the IBC team are overdue for a paternalistic insurgency upon Strangelove’s repositories. Perhaps Strangelove needs a firm hand to dictate how they structure folders, when they merge pull requests, and whether they can contribute at all.

If this seems illogical, impractical, and inhibitory to Strangelove’s daily work, then please engage in the quandary that this proposal is just so, in an equal and opposite manner.

The IBC team remains one of the few quiet gardens in the industrial gabfest that is interchain development. They are a steadfast pillar of the cosmos ecosystem. We are fortunate to have them, and would be fortunate to preserve them.

lovb

Hey there Susanna, I want to let you know that personally I am satisfied with the way that things have been changed to have the IBC apps repository, I think. Is it cool with you if we give it a couple of months and basically just see if the maintenance burden goes down with IBC apps?

My biggest concern was just looking at all the stuff that’s strange love had built, finding that there was a legitimate maintenance problem because it doesn’t land in the main repository.

I’m sorry about my slow reply.

Oh dog, you did present the other side of this very well and I thank you for it .

I think that right now what I’d like to do is give it some time. I was super distraught when I found that I could not find or did not know about the work that strange love had been doing, but dog if you’re active on GitHub, then you know that even I need a firm hand from time to time.

Actually everybody does.

So I wouldn’t really single out strange love on that one and I think that for now we move this proposal to abandoned or something? Maybe? Do you have a woof here?