@spengrah just posted this constitution, I’m keen to hear everyone’s thoughts and feedback.
Note: clr.fund is open-source software and may be forked by any community looking to allocate funds to public goods. This document pertains to the instance of clr.fund dedicated to public goods benefiting the Ethereum Ecosystem. Other instances may have different objectives or values, and this document does not represent them.
I think the term “fork” is not appropriate here. The contracts and UI can be easily used in other contexts without modification, so instead of adding this note we can present versatility as one of the main features. I’d like to make clr.fund a building block which people can deploy anywhere, integrate with DAOs and use for funds allocation in all kinds of communities and ecosystems.
What word would you propose we use instead?
Fork seems appropriate to me.
I would replace this note with something like this:
“While the initial goal of clr.fund project is to create funds allocation mechanism for Ethereum Ecosystem, anyone can deploy their own instance and use it for funds allocation in all kinds of communities and ecosystems.”
I’m fine with that. Go ahead and make a PR for it.
I’m fine with removing the concept of “fork”, but I don’t think that phrasing is quite right since the constitution is explicitly for the Ethereum Ecosystem iteration of clr.fund specifically, not the clr.fund project generally. How about:
“The goal of this instance of clr.fund is to create funds allocation mechanism for Ethereum Ecosystem. Anyone can deploy their own instance and use it for fund allocation in all kinds of communities and ecosystems.”
Good point. I made the pull request: https://github.com/clrfund/constitution/pull/1
If there are no objections, could someone merge this pull request? All conflicts were resolved.
Yeah, I’m cool with it.