Secretary Program #347
Secretary Program #347
Conversation
|
|
Tested with Chopsticks |
|
Ready for review @muharem @ggwpez @franciscoaguirre |
system-parachains/collectives/collectives-polkadot/src/fellowship/mod.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
system-parachains/collectives/collectives-polkadot/src/secretary/mod.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
system-parachains/collectives/collectives-polkadot/src/secretary/mod.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
system-parachains/collectives/collectives-polkadot/src/secretary/mod.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
|
||
| /// [`PayOverXcm`] setup to pay the Secretary salary on the AssetHub in USDT. | ||
| pub type SecretarySalaryPaymaster = PayOverXcm< | ||
| SecretarySalaryInteriorLocation, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should be the fellowship interior account, because the secretary should be paid by the same account. Or we move some funds.
@joepetrowski @muharem WDYT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe better separate account for a separate accounting. But can be funded from the fellowship sub treasury. No strong opinion. Let's hear Joe opinion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we control the account using a fellowship proposal?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are the secretaries only for the Fellowship? I thought the program was meant to include secretaries for other collectives as well. If it's just for the Fellowship, then yeah we should just pay them from the Fellowship salary account. But if it's meant to serve others, then I think they can have their own sub-treasury and make proposals for funding to the collectives that they provide secretary services for.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the current idea is to enable the secretary collective for the technical fellowship for now until more ideas and participants are clearer, rather than having a tresury implementation for just one member. The salary payout account can be changed to the technical fellowship interior account IMO.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Doordashcon what do you mean?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@joepetrowski highlighted that using the Fellowship Salary account would be a wrong direction because of needing migration later on.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's not the "wrong" direction, it's a choice. I see two solutions:
- Special rank of
Secretarywithin Ranked Collective (it doesn't need to be called that in the pallet, could even be a rank 10 for example and the origins are configured to treat that as special); - Separate Secretary collective with its own sub-treasury.
In the case of (1), it would naturally just use the specific collective's sub-treasury. In the case of (2), each collective that the Secretary collective serves would have to chip in funds to pay for the Secretary collective's services.
The only thing that is wrong IMO is to make one Secretary collective for every other collective (effectively halving the total number of collectives that the chain can support).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you for the clarification, @muharem suggested we don't need the Tresury implementation, the Secretary Salary account can be funded using the Technical fellowship sub-treasury.
When more members join who perform operations for other collectives, those collectives can also fund the Salary account using their respective sub-tresuries, a blocker to this might be the refusal of those collectives to comply.
But a need for another Secretary member would have to arise before considering adding another member to the collective.
We won't have a Secretary collective for every other collective, just the one and add more member through the demand for another that serves a seperate collective.
I hope I have been able to understand the suggestions clearly so far 🙏.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, we do not need a sub treasury to pay salaries or fund the Secretary salary account. The whole Secretary can be setup as ranked collective pallet and salary pallet and can serve later secretaries for all collectives. We can even have a different salary accounts for different secretary ranks if needed later. They can be funded by other collective's sub treasuries or the Polkadot Treasury. We do not need referenda and origins because in all cases right now we just need to check if the account belongs to a certain rank of the collective, no plurality voice needed.
system-parachains/collectives/collectives-polkadot/src/secretary/mod.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| @@ -35,6 +35,8 @@ pub mod account { | |||
| pub const FELLOWSHIP_TREASURY_PALLET_ID: PalletId = PalletId(*b"py/feltr"); | |||
| /// Ambassador treasury pallet ID | |||
| pub const AMBASSADOR_TREASURY_PALLET_ID: PalletId = PalletId(*b"py/ambtr"); | |||
| /// Secretary treasury pallet ID | |||
| pub const SECRETARY_TREASURY_PALLET_ID: PalletId = PalletId(*b"py/secrt"); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we do not need this anymore
| pub use pallet_origins::*; | ||
|
|
||
| #[frame_support::pallet] | ||
| pub mod pallet_origins { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
probably no need for this pallet as well
| PhantomData<(T, I)>, | ||
| ); | ||
|
|
||
| impl<T: pallet_ranked_collective::Config<I>, I: 'static> Polling<TallyOf<T, I>> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it would be nice to get this no-op impl for unit or some type in frame, where the trait is defined. we can leave a TODO here with the link to polkadot-sdk PR if you open it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe all the parts where we have the functions unimplemented!()(salary::tests::integration.rs, core-fellowship::tests::integration.rs)?
Closes polkadot-fellows/help-center#10
On Chain Structure
The on-chain program consists of one rank(
SECRETARY) and the default Candidate(SECRETARY_CANDIDATE):Membership Management
Members themselves are without the power to promote or demote, this right is reserved to token holders via Polkadot OpenGov and votes by Fellow of the Technical Fellowship.