Passing Pool QA and forking

[TemperBead]

Going to log this issue stream through I05 - Markdown NFT Mode for pomos even though it refers to two other assets. Reason is this is more about thinking through the md process as a on-ramp to an algo process for the Request/Idea cycle. Also, this is to record thoughts that I'll probably pick up we down the road, but want to record.

So I'm about to propose to DC Pool QA to consider the idea I11 (Request/Idea), which is aimed at solving R10. However, this has raised some questions about how to do this in reality. Two parts - how to do it in md, as indicated my I05. Second is how this happens once we're up and running.

I'm proposing these as opposed to asking a question, so if you agree just give the nod, but if not feel free to comment.

To recap:

1. R10 - Request-Idea has been written.
2. I11 - Request-Idea has responded to that, and suggested what to do. (NB there could be many other Ideas coming in, but there's just us, so there's one.)
3. I11 - Request-Idea is about to be submitted to DC Pool QA to see if it wants to fund it. In due course there will be other pools and other QA requirements, but for now there's DC Pool, and Dust.
4. Should DC Pool QA pass I11 - Request-Idea, what do we do with it?

It's a more complex question than it seems at first.

1. If we move I11 - Request-Idea to the pool/idea folder, then we should remove it from it's current nfa location to avoid duplication.
2. However, if we do that, that's similar to taking it off the market.
3. But this also mirrors a function for the final non-md version. We've been talking about Request-Idea lock, but that's conceptual lock,. ie they're both congruent. That's then (optionally) passed to Pool QA if you want it funded. If it passes, is it removed from others submitting the same Idea to other pools?
4. If it is removed, what would happen if someone forked the idea just before it's taken up by the pool?
5. Once it's taken up by a pool, can the idea be forked and then submitted to another pool?

Proposal:

1. For now, it doesn't matter too much. I propose that we keep the assets in the nfa folders and avoid duplication by having a single doc in the pool which links to canonical copies. Know the pool page you put up was an example, so do you agree?
2. I'm going to create an Idea which references R01 - Dreamcatcher, as a place to capture the above thinking in an asset. (Of course it's a faction of what R01 is asking for, but it needs an asset to go into, not an issue.

[inverted-capital]

In the process I described for entering the pool the item is copied over from the NFAs section into the Pool section. The copying represents that a snapshot of a specific version of the item has been passed by QA, and future modifications are welcome to occur, but will only be updated in the pool once QA has approved them.

Other pools are free to accept anything at all, regardless of its state in other pools.

I don't see this as a problem at all, but rather expected behaviour. In the blockchained version, a pool would accept a particular snapshot of a given item, which can be modified and pull requested against that pool at any time.

[inverted-capital]

the commit reference in ed488f6 was in error - it was meant to reference #31

[TemperBead]

OK, so it's basically a fork via copying the file. That's fine for the md version as the 'flamefront' of what we're working on can be checked by checking the pool first, then nfas. Ie for our purposes, the pool is our branch.

I'm happy for this issue to be closed.

[TemperBead]

Agreed.