Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Grant proposing rights to continuing/incoming members #10133

Closed
1 task done
otoole-brendan opened this issue Sep 24, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by #10166
Closed
1 task done

Grant proposing rights to continuing/incoming members #10133

otoole-brendan opened this issue Sep 24, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by #10166
Assignees
@frazarshad @rabi-siddique
Labels
Governance Governance

Comments

@otoole-brendan
Copy link
Contributor

otoole-brendan commented Sep 24, 2024 •
edited by frazarshad
Loading

What is the Problem Being Solved?

We need to grant rights to continuing / incoming members

Description of the Design

a core eval script based on gov-replace-committee.js that:

  • Starts a new charter
  • Invites members
  • Introduces governed instances: each of the 6 kinds of governed contract (PSM, VaultFactory, Auctioneer, reserve, Provision pool, fluxAggregator aka priceFeed)
    • how to enumerate price feeds?

Test Plan

Bootstrap test. Test that

  • A proposal from a continuing member, supported by 2 continuing members, can govern (change parameters and/or invoke governed APIs) in each of the governed instances

Security Considerations

many and subtle

Scaling Considerations

not much

Upgrade Considerations

While starting a new charter isn't an upgrade, the new instance should include the shutdown enhancement from #10136 .
@otoole-brendan
Copy link
Contributor Author

@frazarshad @rabi-siddique could you please estimate this ticket?

@rabi-siddique
Copy link
Contributor

rabi-siddique commented Sep 24, 2024 •
edited
Loading

We've completed the core eval script for this work item that starts the new charter and invites the new members.

A proposal from a continuing member, supported by 2 continuing members, can govern (change parameters and/or invoke governed APIs) in each instance of each of the 6 kinds of governed contract (PSM, VaultFactory, Auctioneer, reserve, Provision pool, fluxAggregator aka priceFeed

The bootstrap test remains. We've manually tested it for PSM, VaultFactory, and Auctioneer. We need to incorporate changes for the missing contracts.

@dckc dckc changed the title Grant rights to continuing/incoming members Grant proposing rights to continuing/incoming members Sep 24, 2024
@frazarshad frazarshad self-assigned this Sep 25, 2024
@rabi-siddique rabi-siddique mentioned this issue Sep 27, 2024
Merged
@dckc dckc added the Governance Governance label Sep 27, 2024
@dckc dckc mentioned this issue Sep 27, 2024
Merged
@rabi-siddique rabi-siddique mentioned this issue Oct 1, 2024
Merged
rabi-siddique added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 2, 2024
@rabi-siddique
using governedContractKits in core eval replacing committee and chart…
8277e1b 
…er (#10178)

<!-- < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < ☺
v                               ✰  Thanks for creating a PR! ✰
☺ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  -->

<!-- Most PRs should close a specific Issue. All PRs should at least
reference one or more Issues. Edit and/or delete the following lines as
appropriate (note: you don't need both `refs` and `closes` for the same
one): -->


refs: #10134  #10133 

## Description
This pull request builds on #10166 and #10164. It updates the core eval
code to utilize the `governorCreatorFacet` for the governed contracts
via the `governedContractKit`. Initially, the aim was to use the
`governedContractKit` to access facets from price feed contracts. But
since it also includes facets for other governed contracts, I expanded
the code to incorporate these as well.

### Security Considerations
Same as #10166 and #10164 

### Scaling Considerations
<!-- Does this change require or encourage significant increase in
consumption of CPU cycles, RAM, on-chain storage, message exchanges, or
other scarce resources? If so, can that be prevented or mitigated? -->

### Documentation Considerations
<!-- Give our docs folks some hints about what needs to be described to
downstream users. Backwards compatibility: what happens to existing data
or deployments when this code is shipped? Do we need to instruct users
to do something to upgrade their saved data? If there is no upgrade path
possible, how bad will that be for users? -->

### Testing Considerations
Same as specified in #10164 

### Upgrade Considerations
<!-- What aspects of this PR are relevant to upgrading live production
systems, and how should they be addressed? -->
@otoole-brendan otoole-brendan mentioned this issue Oct 2, 2024
Open
@mergify mergify bot closed this as completed in #10166 Oct 10, 2024
@mergify mergify bot closed this as completed in fc1eb01 Oct 10, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@frazarshad frazarshad

@rabi-siddique rabi-siddique

Labels
Governance Governance
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Grant proposing rights to new charter members Agoric/agoric-sdk
4 participants
@dckc @frazarshad @rabi-siddique @otoole-brendan