Closing Bounty 49. Technical Support Bounty.

Treasurer
18d ago
8 Comments
Deciding
Content
AI Summary
Reply
Up
Share
Status
Decision28d
Confirmation7d
Attempts
0
Tally
99.5%Aye
0.5%Nay
Aye
43.71MDOT
Nay
212.81KDOT
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%
  • 0.0%

Threshold

Support0.67%
10.26MDOT
Issuance
1.53BDOT
Votes
Nested
Flattened
Calls
Call
Metadata
Timeline3
Votes Bubble
Statistics
Comments

Comments posted here

Reply
Up

From my recent experience providing technical support through this bounty to external teams building on the Polkadot stack, I have seen its practical value.

The support process typically operates on a monthly cycle:

  • Teams submit their queries and receive technical assistance.
  • After a month, the work is reviewed and, if requirements are met, a child bounty is granted.
  • If the team wishes to continue, they propose a new support request to the curators.

I am currently working with one such team and have been actively engaged for several weeks now. Given this ongoing engagement and the structure in place, I believe this bounty serves an essential function in supporting teams navigating technical integrations.

Closing it prematurely could limit valuable technical assistance for teams that rely on this structured support system. Instead, it may be worth considering ways to improve its visibility and efficiency to maximize its impact.

Edited

Reply
Up
Reply
Up

.

Edited

Reply
Up

Dear Proposer,

Thank you for your proposal. Our first vote on this proposal is AYE.

The Treasurer track requires 60% quorum according to our voting policy. This proposal has received nine aye and zero nay votes from ten members, with one member abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

Most voters supported the closure of the inactive bounty due to its low activity and lack of utilization. Several comments highlighted that the bounty had not been functioning effectively, indicating a consensus on its ineffectiveness. While one voter chose to abstain due to their role as a curator, they generally backed the idea of rebooting similar initiatives in the future. Overall, the feedback reflected a clear agreement on the need to discontinue the unused bounty.

The full discussion can be found in our internal voting.

Kind regards,
Permanence DAO

Reply
Up

Dear Proposer,

Thank you for your proposal. Our second vote on this proposal is AYE.

The Treasurer track requires 60% quorum according to our voting policy. This proposal has received nine aye and zero nay votes from ten members, with one member abstaining. Below is a summary of our members' comments:

The voters overwhelmingly supported closing the bounty due to its inactivity, noting that it had experienced minimal usage and lacked any significant demand. Several voters, including those from the curator board, confirmed that the bounty did not function effectively and recommended its closure. Though one voter chose to abstain, they expressed a general preference for rebooting similar initiatives in the future. Overall, the consensus highlighted the necessity of addressing inactive bounties for better resource allocation.

The full discussion can be found in our internal voting.

Kind regards,
Permanence DAO

Reply
Up