Proposal: OpenZeppelin x Polkadot Ecosystem Growth
This proposal is for OpenZeppelin to create a dedicated open-source development team that will work with Parity and the Polkadot community to define and then deliver new Polkadot parachain runtimes, and improvements to underlying pallets as necessary, which will speed the development and improve the security of new parachains for a variety of key use cases.
Within 90 days of approval of this proposal, OpenZeppelin plans to staff a dedicated development team of 3 members & create and publish a roadmap for the first three quarterly releases, to be delivered at 6, 9, and 12 months after the date of agreement.
We look forward to hearing feedback from the community!
Comments (7)
Comments (7)
Please, make sure to verify your ID. It encourages other people making proposals from the treasury to also do the same regardless of reputation. Specially for cases like Openzeppelin where a big reputation is at stake.
Within the first 30 days begin sourcing a 3 dedicated member open-source development team that will work with Parity and the Polkadot community to define a roadmap
What will be the process for working with the Polkadot community to determine this roadmap? Super keen to see more teams coming into the ecosystem and tackling challenges that the ecosystem faces - however, to date we are missing consensus on "what" it is that needs to be built.
Thinking in particular regarding the generic pallets you'll be developing - how do we ensure that you won't be duplicating work that e.g. Tanssi are doing as part of their generic runtime packages? I would hate to see multiple good teams working on the same thing when they could be tackling ecosystem pain points.
Please, make sure to verify your ID. It encourages other people making proposals from the treasury to also do the same regardless of reputation. Specially for cases like Openzeppelin where a big reputation is at stake.
What will be the process for working with the Polkadot community to determine this roadmap? Super keen to see more teams coming into the ecosystem and tackling challenges that the ecosystem faces - however, to date we are missing consensus on "what" it is that needs to be built.
Thinking in particular regarding the generic pallets you'll be developing - how do we ensure that you won't be duplicating work that e.g. Tanssi are doing as part of their generic runtime packages? I would hate to see multiple good teams working on the same thing when they could be tackling ecosystem pain points.