Should 100 GNO be allocate to Victor Porton for writing the Web UI for modules?

Should 100 GNO be allocated to Victor Porton for writing the Web UI for modules?

I propose to pay 100 GNO to Victor Porton for developing a Web UI to be included into the gnosis-safe.io fo every module currently available in contracts/modules/ as well as developing an UI for adding/removing modules:

  • DailyLimitModule
  • SocialRecoveryModule
  • StateChannelModule
  • WhitelistModule

Victor Porton is a very experienced GitCoin user who completed many Ethereum software projects including UI ones. Almost no projects on GitCoin were failed by Victor.

Victor Porton is not a designer (but is familiar with CSS), so the quality of visual UI is not warranted. If there will be visual issues, let make another proposal later.

It is proposed to pay 60 GNO before starting and 40 GNO after the work is finished.

Hey, thanks for your proposal.

The current web interface already has logic to removing modules. Therefore this is not required anymore.

Also the linked modules are all not production ready and are more meant as reference modules to look at when developing your own modules.

The current approach to add a module would be either to create a custom transaction (which is not super nice) or if you are a dapp developer with a module, write a safe app that triggers a transaction to add a module.

So my proposal would be to apply to a Safe App GECO grant (https://github.com/gnosis/GECO/blob/master/Safe%20Apps%20Grants/Safe%20Apps%20Grants.md) to write a Safe app to add modules (and maybe even remove).

On that note the GECO grant is up to $3000 and this would actually be a quite simple Safe app. Therefore your current proposal of 100 GNO is too high in my opinion.

3 Likes

The current web interface already has logic to removing modules. Therefore this is not required anymore.

It needs to be added also an interface for adding modules.

Also the linked modules are all not production ready and are more meant as reference modules to look at when developing your own modules.

It does not at all prevent and does not make less valuable developing an UI in advance to be used when the modules are finally audited.

The current approach to add a module would be either to create a custom transaction (which is not super nice) or if you are a dapp developer with a module, write a safe app that triggers a transaction to add a module.

I know this. This is exactly the reason why I want to develop the UI for adding modules.

So my proposal would be to apply to a Safe App GECO grant (https://github.com/gnosis/GECO/blob/master/Safe%20Apps%20Grants/Safe%20Apps%20Grants.md) to write a Safe app to add modules (and maybe even remove).

On that note the GECO grant is up to $3000 and this would actually be a quite simple Safe app. Therefore your current proposal of 100 GNO is too high in my opinion.

My proposal also includes writing an UI for each of the mentioned modules. This is much more work than just adding an UI to add a module. Thus it is much more than a single GECO grant. It is equal to 5 GECO grants, so my requested price is quite adequate by Gnosis DAO measures.

It needs to be added also an interface for adding modules.

I think it would be very benefitial to mention why it is needed in the interface. E.g. what would be the benefit of this compared to having a specific Safe app that uses the module add it.

It is equal to 5 GECO grants

As you propose to write multiple interfaces I would recommend to split them into smaller proposals that could each be a GECO grant. Having one big collection issue that includes everything makes it very unlikely to be accepted.

It does not at all prevent and does not make less valuable developing an UI in advance to be used when the modules are finally audited.

We do not plan to audit these modules. Actually we might remove them altogether. Modules that are used are in the safe-modules repository.

I know this. This is exactly the reason why I want to develop the UI for adding modules.

It is good that you know, but in such a proposal you need to convince all GNO token holders, therefore you should be very explicit. The current proposal is very general, without a lot information. For the amount of GNO requested I am missing quite some info, that is why I am mentioning it.

Also one last question: Did you try to apply for a GECO grant with this proposal?

Edit: To get a feeling of what amount of information should be provided I would recommend to take a look at the funded GECO proposals: https://github.com/gnosis/GECO/tree/master/Proposals/Funded%20Projects

I think it would be very benefitial to mention why it is needed in the interface. E.g. what would be the benefit of this compared to having a specific Safe app that uses the module add it.

Yes, it is reasonable to add modules by means of specific safe apps. I will consider this variant (considering and evaluating this variant it is a part of my work under this proposal).

So this fact does not contradict to my proposal, it is just one of the variants to make my proposal work.

As you propose to write multiple interfaces I would recommend to split them into smaller proposals that could each be a GECO grant. Having one big collection issue that includes everything makes it very unlikely to be accepted.

I will consider this.

But:

  • It is beneficial for the DAO to accept it as a wholesale: the price may be smaller, the doer does it in an unified way without incompatibilities and inconsistencies of different parts, I learn to do it once rather than repeated learning by several persons.

  • What are the exact reason that it could not be accepted? I just don’t understand why.

  • Can other forum members comment on whether it is unlikely to be accepted? If it is really so, I can start making GECO grants now, but otherwise I would first wait: what if my proposal indeed will be accepted? This would simplify things.

We do not plan to audit these modules. Actually we might remove them altogether. Modules that are used are in the safe-modules repository.

To be honest, removing any one of these 4 modules would be stupid because every one of them is very useful. I advise to change those plans and make also the auditing proposal or grant (not by me).

However, it would probably be reasonable to move these 4 modules to safe-modules repo. It does not in any way influence my proposal.

The current proposal is very general, without a lot information. For the amount of GNO requested I am missing quite some info, that is why I am mentioning it.

I think, you are right on this. So, please explain me which details you need. Certainly, I want to make the UI of good UX for humans. If I missed the phrase “make the UI of good UX for humans” - it is here now.

Also one last question: Did you try to apply for a GECO grant with this proposal?

I didn’t. Exactly for the reason that it’s big.

Oh, I misread or misremembered it (So, ignore the things I wrote above that contradict to this.): Now I see I can apply for a >$3000 GECO grants. Certainly I will. Just advise please on how many grants to make (and about your proposed removing of modules).

wow that fantastic number