Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Generalise / consolidate voting logic #194

Open
maurolacy opened this issue Oct 21, 2022 · 2 comments
Open

Generalise / consolidate voting logic #194

maurolacy opened this issue Oct 21, 2022 · 2 comments

Comments

@maurolacy
Copy link
Contributor

maurolacy commented Oct 21, 2022

Currently we have a bunch of similar but slightly different implementation of the voting logic.

Moreover: we have a voting-contract package that exists to supposedly avoid that.

Voting contracts:

  • In tgrade-contracts
    • tgrade-ap-voting (already uses voting-contract)
    • tgrade-oc-proposals (already uses voting-contract)
    • tgrade-trusted-circle (already uses voting-contract)
    • tgrade-dispute-multisig
  • In poe-contracts
    • tgrade-community-pool (already uses voting-contract)
    • tgrade-validator-voting (already uses voting-contract)
  • In cw-plus
    • cw3-fixed-multisig
    • cw3-flex-multisig

It'll be good to move / rename the tg-voting-contract package to cw-plus (or to its own repository), and change all multisigs (the ones in cw-plus, poe-contracts, and tgrade-contracts) to use it.

@ueco-jb
Copy link

ueco-jb commented Oct 21, 2022

cc: @webmaster128 @uint

@uint
Copy link
Contributor

uint commented Oct 24, 2022

Makes sense. I feel like it'd more be that we'd make the cw3 spec/package properly reusable/extensible, and use it everywhere. As long as it doesn't break the spec.

Should this ticket be in cw-plus?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants