The Irvine said the team do their best to get minimum production level code that works multiple multiple multiple multiple times. And Can you determine more accurately than the team whether the projects you mentioned are delaying launch?
You cant push the team even this kinds of push make team more tired. They do debugging and test. LAST PIECE.
Iâve repeatedly said the pace is fine, as is the time line. I am simply asking that focus continues to be on delivering Fleming in an MVP form.
Burn out happens when you try to do too much in too little time. Iâm not asking for that at all.
Iâve been assured the goal is to stay 100% focussed on Fleming. If that is the case, I have zero concerns. I will not mentioned this again for a number of weeks, as I think I have made my point and I do not wish to labour it.
Yes this is exactly what we need!
Todayâs all hands was exactly about that âbaby Flemingâ and looking at how we can push out stuff as soon as possible, but also realising this is all the parts coming together and many bugs will need fixed. So yes this is priority 1.
@dirvine â Is there going to be a name for the working post-Maxwell upgrade? If so, would be nice for that to be made public as the âfully functional MVP working network with real safecoinâ milestone.
While I can appreciate that Maxwell could be that final version if/when the upgrade system is fully working, it makes it a bit confusing as Maxwell is sort of a Schrodingerâs cat if the upgrade system doesnât work properly and and it takes a few versions of Maxwell before we get to the safecoin launch point.
Wouldnât that be Beta?
Fleming and Maxwell are alphaâs ⌠so yes, it would be Beta ⌠but there will be multiple betaâs as well, so why not continue with existing naming scheme or start new naming scheme for betaâs?
I expect it will happen sooner or later, just thinking it would be nice to see the roadmap extended beyond Fleming and Maxwell ⌠and may help peeps to see the bigger picture more clearly.
@Cryptoskeptic and @Antifragile Just a quick note to say that yesterday I deleted the 3 shared project boards that you quite rightly pointed out were no longer serving any purpose since they had been unmaintained for a couple of months.
Iâve reminded the team that it is important to keep their work up to date in the specific repository project boards, we should all be using these boards day to day to track our work anyway, so no extra maintenance is required. These repository project boards should reflect what we are detailing in our weekly updates, and should be linked to at the top of each applicable section.
Thanks for flagging!
Thanks for the explanation Jim. I was wondering why MVP had been redefined.
âTo the average user though, itâd likely be quite raw,â
This is as it should be - the average user isnât going to be an early adopter, by definition. The people in this forum are the early adopters, theyâre already here. The goal of the MVP should not be to get people building apps, that comes last, but instead to encourage a fertile community of open source developers (which MaidSafe do not have to pay for). MVP is fine, people know what it means, we donât need a new term or to aim for a friendly first release.
How about this?..
MVP =
The worst that happens is no one new is interested (i.e. same as today), more likely we start to gradually engage more and more people who can contribute to the development process.
The roll out of test vaults is an excellent step forward.
PS, I learnât recently that Bitcoin had a bug for its first 18 months which meant that anyone could have paid all UTXO outputs to themselves, taking the entire circulation of coinage.
The cause of this was that Satoshi had imported a huge amount of script functionality from the Forth language without having spent much time(1) reasoning about the scope and interactive complexity of those constructs.
(1) This was not just because he didnât have time, but more because reasoning about consensus safe languages was a new science which had very few minds on at the time.
An anonymous tip off to Satoshi & Gavin solved the problem before any damage was done.
The moral of the story being to do well enough to foster a growing community of outsiders, but no more.
Yes there wee a few of these things in the early days. Another bug mined millions of coins. The issue was not enough folk thinking about digtal cash, although there were a good few, like Wie Dai etc.
Now though we do have more minds, so it helps, but we also have another worry. We have more Eve type hackers that will exploit such errors for themselves. So there is a balance we need to be careful of, even other projects trying to snaffle each other (Iceland coin etc.)
I agree, key is simplicity and iterating âsomethingâ that is launched. We are all on that same page.
The sort of thing you are describing here is really the job of Fleming and Maxwell. In my opinion we need MVP and MVE in order for a successful launch, bearing in mind that the integrity of network, and the robustness of itâs economy will require a certain level of user base order to float.
BTW, MVP is such a fluid and widely misinterpreted term, itâs always worth defining for every project IMHO.
Glad to hear it.
Re: More hackers. Make it clear that early iterations are test nets such that no one puts anything of value in the network and that should keep everyone in whitehat mode.
oh, is MVE a pre-fleming release?
But where then am I going to store my complete discography of Kylie Minogue albums?
on my server please
No, itâs a parallel stream that influences the design of Fleming and Maxwell, but will need to be completed for Beta.
Okay. Seems unnecessarily complex: MVP, MVE, Beta, Fleming, Maxwell.
I encourage MaidSafe to aim for a super crappy MVP which demonstrates a functional bare minimum only (vaults, clients, no central server, can store encrypted data pretty robustly, maybe even drop SAFECoin from it - no incentives needed in a testnet after all). And then de-emphasizing all of these other conventions which Iâd imagine would all change a lot anyway once the MVP was in the wild.
It is important to always have an eye on the horizon, so having a pipeline of goals is healthy, but named deliverables like MVE, beta, Fleming etc encourage people to focus too much on the horizon in my view and confuse the task at hand which is demonstrating a concept to bring in more hands. MVP is enough of a task.
I agree with this. Just alpha 1, 2, 3 ⌠with check boxes in the roadmap would be clearer.