[bisq-network/bisq] Update contribution guidelines (#3762)

[Christoph Atteneder]

ripcurlx commented on this pull request.

Concept ACK

I think the content we want to have in is there, but I'd like for more regular contributors to respond as this is a bigger change in our PR process as well.

@sqrrm @cbeams @julianknutsen @wiz @devinbileck @chimp1984 

>  
-Discussion about code changes happens in GitHub issues and pull requests.
+**Will you get paid?** Well, yes and no. With Bisq, there is no classic funding or investors, so there is no payout of fiat money.
+- Yes, because there is the DAO. The DAO allows for compensation requests to be filed and voted on. If such a voting goes in your favor, you receive BSQ, a colored bitcoin token. Sell your BSQ and you get your fiat eventually.

Maybe add a link to the DAO documentation for further reading.

>  
-Discussion about code changes happens in GitHub issues and pull requests.
+**Will you get paid?** Well, yes and no. With Bisq, there is no classic funding or investors, so there is no payout of fiat money.
+- Yes, because there is the DAO. The DAO allows for compensation requests to be filed and voted on. If such a voting goes in your favor, you receive BSQ, a colored bitcoin token. Sell your BSQ and you get your fiat eventually.
+- No, because the market is still very small. We can sustain a few full-timers (paying rent, tax, small stuff) but do not expect to get rich fast and easy just now.

IMO this sounds a little bit as if full timers are preferred in the market, which is not correct. Also it makes assumption about what we think is sustainable for contributors.
Maybe we could just point out the total numbers:
`No, because the market is still bootstrapping. Since the launch of the DAO in April 15th 2019 there were 623k BSQ sold for 68 BTC (average of 0.064 BTC per day) as of December 10th.`

>  
-Discussion about larger changes to the way Bisq works happens in issues the [bisq-network/proposals](https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals/issues) repository. See https://docs.bisq.network/proposals.html for details.
+The more correct way to see payment is "compensation". By earning BSQ, you invest in the Bisq project (just like other startups do it). But make no mistake, the DAO has only been operating for a few months now. Eventually, Bisq will create serious revenue.

I'm not so sure about the `revenue` term. Bisq had already serious volume (revenue) it is just more about the relationship of BSQ burnt and BSQ issued. Which would mean `profit` in regular terms. But again I'm not sure if it is wise to connect the dots that blunt using these terms. Maybe write something like:
`Although the platform was launched in April 2016, the DAO has only been operating for a few months now. Eventually, the amount of BSQ burnt (through trading fees or other DAO related utilities) in relation to BSQ issued will increase significantly over time.`

>  
-Bisq follows the review workflow established by the Bitcoin Core project. The following is adapted from the [Bitcoin Core contributor documentation](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#peer-review):
+Join Gibhub if you haven't already, fork the Bisq repository, configure your local git ([username](https://help.github.com/articles/setting-your-username-in-git/), [commit signing](https://help.github.com/articles/signing-commits-with-gpg/)), clone your Bisq-fork to disk, do a compile run `./gradlew build`.

```suggestion
Join Gibhub if you haven't already, fork the Bisq repository, configure your local git ([username](https://help.github.com/articles/setting-your-username-in-git/), [commit signing](https://help.github.com/articles/signing-commits-with-gpg/)), clone your Bisq-fork to disk and do a compile run `./gradlew build`.
```

>  
-Anyone may participate in peer review which is expressed by comments in the pull request. Typically reviewers will review the code for obvious errors, as well as test out the patch set and opine on the technical merits of the patch. Project maintainers take into account the peer review when determining if there is consensus to merge a pull request (remember that discussions may have been spread out over GitHub, mailing list and IRC discussions). The following language is used within pull-request comments:
+Now you are ready to roll. Pick something off the [Good First Issue List](https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22good+first+issue%22), pick any other issue, do some testing, spot a bug, report it and fix it, maybe there is something in the UI that needs cosmetic work.

Although everyone can do whatever they want, maybe we should point the user more to the tasks we'd like to have them fulfilled. E.g. Take a good first issue or fix a bug.

>  
-See https://help.github.com/articles/setting-your-username-in-git/ for instructions.
+## Honor Git best practice
+ - Create a topic branch off master
+ - Commit little, commit often
+ - Maintain a clean commit history (no merges commits!, use rebase and force-push if necessary)
+ - Use meaningful commit subjects AND description (then, now, good, bad, risks)

> (then, now, good, bad, risks)
 
What do you mean with that?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/pull/3762#pullrequestreview-329688863
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20191210/8be3553c/attachment.html>