cisco: retain at rank 1

evidence/cisco/0002-2024-11-08-rank-1-retention.md

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+# Evidence-0002: Retention at Rank I
+
+|                 |                                                                                             |
+| --------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
+| **Report Date** | 2024/11/08                                                                                  |
+| **Submitted by**| Francisco Aguirre                                                                           |
+
+## Member details
+
+- Matrix username: `@cisco:parity.io`
+- Polkadot address: `129EYiTbv2J4LkYqRNssUfMuxNLYN8TW2LgfG1Gqyj8wCcs7`
+- Current rank: `1`
+- Date of initial induction: `2024/05/31`
+- Date of last report: `2024/08/14`
+- Area(s) of Expertise/Interest: `XCM`
+
+## Reporting period
+
+- Start date: `2024/08/14`
+- End date: `2024/11/08`
+
+## Evidence
+
+During the reporting period covered by this letter, my main focus was the newest iteration of the XCM format, version 5.
+I also helped design Snowbridge V2 and continued my efforts in improving and integrating the new XCM runtime APIs in the ecosystem.
+
+I [participated in a retreat with the snowfork team](https://x.com/_snowbridge/status/1834569673045852412) where we all worked together to design [Snowbridge V2](https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/blob/90ff47d989b0498e4e88366b432486e06b1398d8/bridges/snowbridge/docs/v2.md).
+It was a good step to understand how the bridge worked and bridges in general.
+The final design ended up heavily using some XCMv5 features to provide a simpler and cheaper protocol for users.
+
+[XCMv5 was merged recently](https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/pull/4826).
+Most of my effort this period went into it.
+I started it as its own milestone branch from where we created a branch per RFC implementations.
+This way we could review each smaller PR individually but make only one merge to master, not needing feature flags for the new version.
+I worked on making sure the milestone branch was always up-to-date with master.
+I also implemented some of the PRs that went into it, like [not needing to specify weight on Transact](https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/pull/6228) and [the new fee payment instruction](https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/pull/5420).
+These improvements, along with the whole of XCMv5, will make errors rarer, improving the current situation.
+
+I continued development on the XcmPaymentApi and DryRunApi.
+I fixed some bugs like [removing redundant information](https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/pull/5913) and [clearing messages before dry-running](https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/pull/5581)
+and continued integrating it in runtimes with returning assets in pools with the native asset as fee payment options (PRs [SDK#5599](https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/pull/5599) and [SDK#6080](https://github.com/paritytech/polkadot-sdk/pull/6080)).
+Some of these fixes are not yet in the fellowship runtimes since the SDK version is lagging behind.
+I [updated asset hub foreign asset ids from XCMv3 to XCMv4](https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/runtimes/pull/472) to prepare for [integrating sdk stable2490](https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/runtimes/pull/490).
+
+These APIs are already live in the runtimes but apps still need time to integrate them.
+I [made an app](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/a-website-to-dry-run-calls-with-any-origin/10786) to allow users and devs to use them and show how they can be used.
+I also worked with the PAPI (Polkadot-API) team to develop an XCM SDK that integrates these APIs to estimate fees along the whole journey of an XCM, still under development.
+The runtime APIs and new fee payment mechanism will enable apps to correctly estimate XCM fees.
+
+Next period, my focus will be in getting XCMv5 to the hands of developers and users and making it as easy as possible to use it.
+
+## Voting record
+*Provide your voting record in relation to required thresholds for your rank.* 
+
+|  Ranks | Activity thresholds | Agreement thresholds | Member's voting activities | Comments |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+|I  |90%   |N/A   | I have voted on 0 out of 1 referenda in which I was eligible to vote (0% voting activity) | There's not much I can vote on as a rank I. However, there was 1 referendum that was open to anyone. I will start to look at referenda frequently, despite my rank. |
+|II |80%   |N/A   |   |  |
+|III|70%   |100%  |   |  |
+|IV |60%   |90%   |   |  |
+|V  |50%   |80%   |   |  |
+|VI |40%   |70%   |   |  |