SNAC Proposal: Consolidate and Revamp docs.scrt.network and build.scrt.network

Summary

I would like to:

  1. consolidate https://docs.scrt.network/ and https://build.scrt.network/
  2. do a full review of the documentation, ensuring compliance
  3. convert all of the documentation to use gitbook.

The Problem

The current state of documentation between https://build.scrt.network/ and https://docs.scrt.network/ has fallen out of sync, where each provides different (and misleading!) information. This has come up repeatedly with the new Secret Agent Program test, where many users answered the validator slashing penalty was 1%, as stated on build. The correct answer is 0.01%, as stated on docs. This is further complicated by the fact that Secret Labs updates[0] https://build.scrt.network/, but not https://docs.scrt.network/ so if they make a change it has to be translated over.

There has also arisen an issue where new Intel processors have potentially fallen out of compliance/sync with the current SGX drivers, as discovered by Figment. I find this deeply concerning, as it’d then effect the Spartan Proposal. I want to provision a server and test to confirm compliance.

Finally, gitbook[1] has become the defacto standard for cosmos chains, so I want to modernize the documentation by utilizing it as well. Juno has a great example for how this will look.

Timeline

The goal is to have this complete within 3 weeks of funding. Note this is partially dependent on Secret Labs’ timelines, as they must review/merge pull requests submitted to their Github.

I expect it to take 80 hours total to complete this. Note that around 20 hours have already been spent in this endeavor, between coordinating with Secret Labs, deleting/revising documentation, and setting up gitbooks.

The work would be completed as follows:

  1. consolidate docs to https://docs.scrt.network/
  2. have https://build.scrt.network/ redirect to https://docs.scrt.network/
  3. remove all documentation from SecretNetwork/docs at master · scrtlabs/SecretNetwork · GitHub
  4. convert https://docs.scrt.network/ to gitbook
  5. revise documentation ← this will include notes from the Supernova upgrade
  6. provision E-2388G (or similar gen) processor for compliance checks

Resources Required

This budget is based on a price snapshot on November 4th with the price of SCRT @ $8.73.

schultzie | Lavender.Five Nodes = 900 SCRT
- 8 years experience as a software engineer
- Authored uncountably many technical and architectural documents, including creating the Web Map Specification which standardizes 2D maps across all ESRI products and the Department of Defense, and had an advisory role on the 3D spec
- Validator on the Secret Network, Kava Network, Impact Hub, Juno, etc.
- Member of the Secret Network Infrastructure team

VPS cost for 1 month with E-2388G series processor = 40 SCRT
- This will require some discovery, however Vultr provides the old E-2288G for $350/mo, so I assume it’ll be around the same price.

schultzie | Lavender.Five Nodes: 900 SCRT
VPS Server for 1 month: 40 SCRT

Total Ask: 940 SCRT


[0]: this is no longer true, as I’ve coordinated with the Secret Labs team to forgo updating https://build.scrt.network/
[1]: gitbooks has already been reached out to in order to confirm we can use the community tier

9 Likes

I agree to this proposal, Infra community had already subscribed to gitbooks and already started some basic commits to this.

It would be best we port all our documentation to this. Also best to give SCRT LABS access to this as well so post snac completion this is auto updated by community.

Any other need from infra wit respect to documentation can be requested.

I don’t. Providing documentation formed part of previous Infra proposals that have already been funded.

Just so we’re clear what you’re saying: you want the docs to no longer be updated? The infrastructure team is no longer going to be going on chain to do this type of work, so it’ll be completely voluntary for people to update them (as I have done).

Documentation isn’t a one-and-done type of thing. If infrastructure was going to continue being funded on chain, I would agree with you.

I do appreciate caution in spending, but the docs need updated. I have spent EASILY 20 hours over the last month helping people get going on running a validator. I’m not asking for funding for that, just to make those lives down the line easier.

Indeed, if we’re opening up the validator set to 60, 75, 100, that’s a lot of eyes looking at the docs.

4 Likes

Indeed. I will not be further updating any docs on my own or requesting or accepting funds for doing so from any source. I was compensated for moving docs over which was done and I will put in some effort to help Dylan with certain docs that we have already discussed collaborating on, but If people want documentation work to continue I personally think Dylan is the best bet to achieve this moving forward.

2 Likes

Infra has still not finished delivery for the funding it received. The second round of funding, where there was an excess budget of 100% of the initial budget, is still under effect imo. Supposedly this excess was to be dedicated to things under charter.

Proposal B included funding for 3 months compensation, which would end on November 26th.

Cant force people to work obviously, but if you choose not to deliver one of your charter objectives (updating docs with supernova changes sure sounds like smth that would fall under this) while still under funding, and waiting for hardware so not even like the rest of the proposal is being worked on, then good to know.

Surely some of this excess budget for other charter objectives could go to compensating Dylan anyway.

To be clear:

  • Infra Prop B compensation funding was 3 months.
  • 3rd month ends on Nov 26th
  • Infra Prop B had an excess of 65K USD.
  • Infra leads said they would use the excess towards other charter objectives
  • Providing docs is a charter objective

Please explain why you cant fund 9k USD out of the 65K USD excess toward this effort given the above @mohammedpatla @moonstash

@mumuse As stated above. I will help him with some docs, but I will not be funding these efforts, asking for funding, accepting any funding from this inititive, or pulled into another bout of drama. I will continue to work towards delivery of anything I am responsible for but there is no chance I will be forced to pay for maintaining documentation on a rolling basis or anything of that nature. This is the last and only comment I will make on this matter.

There cannot be overlapping deliverables here.

Supernova (Nov 10th) doc updates related to infra work fall under the scope of what was previously funded through Nov 26th.

@dylanschultzie I never said that I am in favor of out of date docs. I am in favor of funding maintenance of them.
The point nevertheless is defining clearly the scope of the proposal/deliverables and determining what has been funded already and what hasn’t, considering other teams presented documentation deliverables as part of their objectives.

So could you please provide more details on what exactly is the amount of out of date documentation that doesnt overlap for funding?

1 Like

Sure! There’s actually quite a lot. I only used infrastructure as my example to provide a clear understanding, but it’s far more wide-scale than that. There’s a slew of developers docs that need to be reviewed, moved, and potentially modified if need be. I also included extra documentation, such as post mortems.

Here’s a single page: Secret Contracts Quickstart | Secret Network that I’ll be reviewing. In order to review for accuracy, I need to go through every step to ensure they’re correct. This falls far outside of infrastructure funding.

I could go through and do an estimate of the docs that need reviewing, as you suggest, but I was trying to be conservative with the pricing. The page linked about will likely take 8 hours to completely review by itself; that’s one of MANY such docs. Check out the Privacy Model: Privacy Model of Secret Contracts | Secret Network. I just want to get the work done and be paid fairly for it.

My intention with joining the infrastructure team was to act as a technical advocate for the ecosystem. Just because the infrastructure team is no longer going to exist in its current form doesn’t mean I don’t intend to still fulfill that role in some form. Indeed, I spoke with @Carter-Woetzel, @JXR50, and others about potentially filling the developer committee lead to do so.

6 Likes

Thanks for the explanation, it helps to understand the scope much better compared to the initial post.

1 Like

Yeah of course, I should have added more details to clarify the scope better.

2 Likes

Yea thanks for clarifying.

I wanted to bring my points forward that the infra is still continuing to support documents anything with infra/node related. But documentation goes further than that, and hopefully, this can ramp all the documentation in one place. Plus during this SNAC as proposed we are moving to Gitbook, which means a new structure needs to be created, perhaps new tutorials and other details that are not just node running related.

Also @dylanschultzie i already pushed the node module changes to the gitbook, I don’t know if you are going to have other people contribute to this but feel free to touch base with me if you need references on anything else as well.

Also perhaps touching base in the Dev community might be good as well.