You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Witness Standards For Team NobleWitness

in #witness-category6 years ago

In this case, no. What is not included in this document and which should have been, perhaps, but was not really presented as part of the "assignment" as it were, is a section on what we expect from "steemit, inc" and perhaps that section is rightfully not part of the assignment, as they are merely one of many entities who could theoretically or practically submit acceptable changes to the steemd codebase.

That missing section would call for clear, concise and timely change documentation in a single location, with comprehensive coverage of changes, and intended/expected outcomes. "Dig in github" is not an acceptable answer here.

Further, clear and concise comments in the code, at the affected lines, would be helpful, but not always required, if the above documentation was able to reference specifically altered files, and even line number level pointers. Again, "use github diff" by and of itself as an answer is not acceptable in a proper QA protocol and wouldn't be acceptable here either, in an environment within historically incrementally developed code, touched by dozens of developers over two years, without standards at a consistent level over time.

Still further, we've argued this point before, conceding points in both directions to each other that the test environment was neither properly configured to emulate a reasonable staging environment nor made unililatery available in a well documented, established location wherein all witnesses desiring to exercise their obligation/right/need/intent to test on it were even aware of how, when and where it was.

So if we included requirements for developers and code gatekeepers, primarily Steemit Inc at this time, then no, this nor the 19.x version that produced unintended fork crashing the week prior, would NOT have been acceptable.

Given our guidelines above, the testing requirement could not adequately be fulfilled minus the above, so no, we could not have in good conscience greenlighted this HF at the time of release.

That said, I also know from our direct conversations, that you yourself are working on these very issues directly now, and as I have said to you in public in person, in SteemSpeak, I have faith you are going to aim for the correct infrastructure to make some of this all more possible, and effective.

Good question, speaking hypothetically :D

Sort:  

1.- Steemit. Inc needs to be more user friendly, specially during changes
2.- Witnesses need to act FOR all Steemians
3.- Witnesses should act like responsible adults
4.- HF20 could have gone smoother if only all the above parties cared enough.
Did I get this right? If Steemit is to remain the best place to be @sircork we need more witnesses like you.

If I take you exactly as written I'd agree you got it right.

If I get confused about #1 and aren't sure if you mean the company needs to be more user friendly, Id agree, in terms of communications and their current record of piss poor management behavior, but if you mean steemit.com the condenser blogging UX interface to the chain, well, it could be better, but that's not the same as the block chain itself. And as such outside the real requirements of a witnesses attention or focus.

Thank you though, for the compliment!