GitXplorerGitXplorer
c

org

public
71 stars
17 forks
55 issues

Commits

List of commits on branch main.
Verified
ea7343ff337d0836e45143ad3b38be58ca5a9d2b

Create README

ssockdrawermoney committed 2 years ago
Verified
4da79cc19ab505f12bb336f088439b334f165642

link to Tally chat message re: past proposals

ssockdrawermoney committed 2 years ago
Verified
a2656837390645be69fababf09f1d28077f3a18c

Update README.md

ssockdrawermoney committed 2 years ago
Verified
946c186f359e9db6ef244f94081ffb885ea9f668

Update README.md

ssockdrawermoney committed 2 years ago
Verified
eb56bd24589946cb43228531f6461b5def103ac1

Update README.md

ssockdrawermoney committed 2 years ago
Verified
856132dccb32ef619917a25352da3acec0a72df3

Rename mechanism.md to MECHANISM.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