GitXplorerGitXplorer
c

org

public
71 stars
17 forks
55 issues

Commits

List of commits on branch main.
Verified
4a237b39166b3f991c555e7b6d698a4147e5cbe1

Removing in favor of enacted UNA Articles of Association

ssockdrawermoney committed 2 years ago
Verified
c0a97963fb6515e2f85b2474ab2edbef4da5326e

Update README.md

ssockdrawermoney committed 2 years ago
Unverified
e4ebbb5fcc2175dda7e174acd2d280aaf9fc448e

add slides

committed 2 years ago
Unverified
75b98c50bbc48f1c689acc615a4f61531372cddd

thx @sseefried for the recording

committed 2 years ago
Unverified
78a494ffd2197879acf1b91888a26adadf2560b3

gitattributes

committed 2 years ago
Verified
dd97e7e8505eb36809d9bc74cad211f9b9a6df57

Rename README to README.md

ssockdrawermoney committed 2 years ago

README

The README file for this repository.

Code4rena Org

Code4rena Contest Rulebook

Code4rena is an interdependent community of people doing highly subjective work in a greenfield industry.

In order to facilitate consensus building, this repository contains the mechanism, rules, and best current practices of Code4rena contests:

  • Best Current Practices are community-driven discussions intended to provide guidance for sponsors, judges, and wardens. You can find discussions of best current practices in open rules issues.
  • Mechanism represents the fundamentals of how audit contests work and how awards are distributed. (minimal currently)
  • Rules support the mechanism with nuance applied in subjective scenarios as interpreted by judges (NOT STARTED YET)

Contributing to the rulebook

Pasted from this chat thread introducing this repo to provide some context in the absence of any documentation for this repo yet :)

+1 to it being super helpful for wardens to help identify which things from past contests seem like they may be outliers.

Can we ask everyone to file issues on this repo for each case that stands out as a deviation or a place where the rule seems inconsistently applied?

We are intending to develop as the single source of truth for which things are hard and fast rules vs more subjective and still developing.

One absolute requirement: let’s make sure issues are filed as neutrally worded inquiries rather than that turning into a public complaint field about how your own submissions were judged. (There is no code of conduct in the repo yet, but this will be there when we get a chance.)

Tip: If you feel strong emotion as you’re filing an issue, it would be wise to take a step back for a bit and then come back later and try to submit your issue as a neutral scientific examination. Creating this rulebook will be a collaborative effort between all members of the community, and eventually we will have clear processes created and documented for how changes are proposed and made.

Right now we’re bootstrapping it, so please feel free to contribute however you see best and we’ll start to work to sort the chaos out as a community. The structure is not set in stone either; do feel free to make suggestions for how it could be improved