Much more write level access

[faddat]

At present I have 20 git remotes for the cosmos SDK.

The majority of the remotes that I have the map to change that have contributed very significant code and economic value to the entire cosmos ecosystem.

What I'm personally looking for, is a solution that guarantees right access to any team that is either making significant contributions to cosmos or has launched a chain that has let's say in access of a 20 million market cap, but just to be philosophically ridiculous, I would like to measure that not in dollars but in satoshi's or in atoms.

Today is Saturday March 18th 2023, and currently 20 million in satoshi's is:

728.02 BTC
1509575 Atoms

I do not think we should actually measure in dollars I figure that hyperinflates soon.

So, what if we fixed at the lower of 728.02 BTC or 1509575 ATOM?

Basically at that level of economic contribution to the ecosystem, I believe that chain teams should have write access. I also believe that teams that have written a lot of code for cosmos, should also have write access.

I think that this would transform the cosmos SDK repository. The reason that I think this would transform the cosmos SDK repository is that it would become pluralistic. I have absolutely zero interest in seeing the management of this repository changed, binary builders has done incredible work under difficult circumstances. They are the quintessential open source servant leaders.

Instead of changing the management, I would just like to see remotes eliminated. But the thing is the only way to eliminate remotes is to start granting many more chain teams write access.

Recently, on Twitter, and in the GVA, I have promoted the idea of la revolution, that is to say, using Cosmos help governance to give many more teams write access to repositories like the cosmos SDK, and IBC.

It would be way cooler, and easier, if there was no governance proposal needed. Why all my own team has made significant contributions to various repositories in the cosmos organization, a particular case comes to mind. Strange love has made very substantial improvements to the IBC repository. Those improvements are much easier to maintain if they are maintained inside of the IBC repository. Furthermore, there is a discoverability problem. It is literally a profit driver for notional to understand where new code is, and how to use it. Because of that, as notional CEO, I make sure to try and know where new code is. When I discovered that I had no idea about around 8 months to one years work by strange love, I personally felt that I had failed. When I looked at the situation, however, what I noticed was that there wasn't really a way for me to see it, at least in my normal workflow.

Now, I am imagining a world where the majority of teams that frequently contribute, push directly to the repositories that they are targeting.