A detailed resume highlighting relevant expertise.
I have been passionate about computers since forever, I’ve been a developer for over 10 years, in the blockchain space for 10 years because I love the technology, and I’ve always been a big promoter of open source.
A cover letter describing your vision for Decentraland’s future.
Decentraland should follow the initial vision and whitepaper, be fully open, with a well documented protocol, allowing anyone to contribute and build on top of it.
Decentraland should be developed by its community and it’s currently not possible due to how the protocol decisions are taken.
Decentraland is currently engine-agnostic and it should stay that way to kept it open, decentralized and independent of any entity, but not everyone at the Foundation share that vision, that’s why we need someone to fight and maintain a strict position on that crucial point.
Evidence of your understanding of Decentraland’s ecosystem and commitment to its growth.
I’ve been participating in the community for the past 7 years (since April 2017), worked with the Foundation for 3 years, part of the SAB and DAO Committee for 5 years.
I’ve also been providing plenty of services to creators in Decentraland, created a wearables, and developed several open source scenes.
I helped during DCL hackathons in Kenya and Valencia, Spain.
Any other information you consider relevant to back your application.
Despite some people not appreciating certains decisions I made, I think everyone can agree that I always acted in Decentraland best interest.
I’ve been committed to bringing Decentraland up and don’t plan to stop any time soon.
From a member of the DAO Committee and the Security Advisory Board, I would expect a better understanding of the Terms of Use.
In this document is outlined how the Foundation is claiming the Intellectual Property on their productions, which includes the various Unity clients developed for the experience of entering Decentraland, and the various SDK APIs developed for the experience of creating in Decentraland.
However, from conversations with the applicant, it is unclear there is the proper understanding of the following clause:
The Foundation does not own or control Decentraland, as ownership and governance is decentralized in the community through the DAO.
The applicant has even gone as far as to claim that the Foundation could claim control of github repositories hosting DAO-funded projects, such as the alternative Godot client.
Thank you, it reassures me that the only thing you have to complain about me is you not understanding a message where I said that the Foundation are admin of the “decentraland” github organization so they could technically restrict Lean from the current Godot repo.
This is concerning. I was under the impression that the DAO was in control of the alternate client repos, especially since we are funding the initiatives. How can we change this? Thank you for bringing it to light.
It’s not actually that concerning, it’s just hosting the code and the auto building, it would take 15 minutes for the Godot team to create a new github organization, reupload the code and setup the building process again.
It’s mainly under the decentraland github to keep things clean (and maybe to not have to pay for github premium on their own?). But the Foundation technically has the github permission to restrict the current repository (not that it would do much except lower the Foundation credibility and trust, but technically they could).
Yes, “technically” they could, but the context of the conversation was over who actually owns the Godot project itself.
And in the broader context, who owns DCL itself !
There should be no concern about the Foundation doing something as rash as using their repo control-rights to close out control from a DAO-owned project.
However, there should be concern about the general lack of understanding of the balance of power between the Foundation and the DAO community.
And statements such as “technically restrict Lean from the current Godot repo” have been thrown around out of context far too much, in a way that has bred overly detrimental confusion about this matter.
I was always talking about the Github repository and not the project itself, not sure how you could have understood anything else.
If we are talking about the godot project itself, it’s not owned by the Foundation nor is it owned by the DAO, it’s owned by the developers, Lean, Mateo and Rob.
The Godot and Bevy clients are DAO-FUNDED, not DAO-owned.
It is not very nice to be taking conversations out of context. Nor to edit responses without giving me a chance to modify my own responses in return.
I know very well that the team of developers is the one who owns the project.
What I have been trying to clarify is in regards to the true nature of a DAO.
The DAO is composed of all who participate in the project.
As of such, the Godot project DAO-owned, as opposed to Foundation-owned.
Even if it is not owned by the whole of the DAO !
The point of the matter is whether or not the Foundation could practically decide to effect this overreach of power, not whether or not they could technically do it.
Forcing Leandro’s team to redeploy somewhere else would simply not be appropriate, of course.
But the original conversation was about whether or not the Foundation could simply take over the code itself.
It would help if you attempted to clarify a lot more the responses you give to such very important questions, in general they are far too confusing.
