fix: connect auctioneer governance to EC charter

[dckc]

refs: #7249, #6930, Agoric/dapp-econ-gov#34

Description

To get more frequent auctions for testing (#7249), I tried using governance to change the StartFrequency parameter but discovered a couple gaps that we fill here:

• feat: introduce auctioneer to econCommitteeCharter
• feat: publish agoricNames.brand.timer

Security Considerations

closes an important governance gap

Scaling Considerations

none?

Documentation Considerations

agoricNames is an important API. cf. #7229

@michaelfig and talked about agoricNames.timerBrand.blockTime since timerBrand is not an ERTP brand. It's been a while since I added a child to agoricNames, though, so while I look into that, perhaps folks can consider whether this is close enough.

Testing Considerations

more fun with bootstrap tests!

[samsiegart]

I don't seem to be able to pause offers when testing this out locally. Repro steps:

1. Checkout dc-auctioneer-charter and run inter-protocol/scripts/start-local-chain
2. Open a vault on gov1 to get some IST to bid with.
3. Place a bid successfully (it shows up in wallet UI as pending) with bin/agops inter bid by-price --price 10 --giveCurrency 10 --wantCollateral 1 --offerId bid-12345
4. Go to https://pause-liquidations.dapp-econ-gov.pages.dev/?agoricNet=local and in Vaults -> Pause Liquidation Bids make a successful vote:
   
5. Try (3) again with a different offerId, observe the bid is placed successfully despite having attempted to pause bids.

Here are the chain logs, if it's helpful to try and rule out an issue with the voting proposal sent by the UI: https://gist.github.com/samsiegart/4b2dae7d02e9f973d3688c6afab0387b

[dckc]

@samsiegart in your logs I see make bid but in the contract I see new bid:

agoric-sdk/packages/inter-protocol/src/auction/auctioneer.js

Line 564 in c548d92

'new bid',

offer with "make bid"

2023-04-01T16:22:38.360Z SwingSet: vat: v25: walletFactory.fromBridge: { blockHeight: 181, blockTime: 1680366153, owner: 'agoric1ldmtatp24qlllgxmrsjzcpe20fvlkp448zcuce', spendAction: '{"body":"{\\"method\\":\\"executeOffer\\",\\"offer\\":{\\"id\\":1680366153492,\\"invitationSpec\\":{\\"source\\":\\"continuing\\",\\"previousOffer\\":1680365959599,\\"invitationMakerName\\":\\"VoteOnPauseOffers\\",\\"invitationArgs\\":[{\\"@qclass\\":\\"slot\\",\\"index\\":0,\\"iface\\":\\"Alleged: InstanceHandle\\"},[\\"make bid\\"],{\\"@qclass\\":\\"bigint\\",\\"digits\\":\\"1680366213\\"}]},\\"proposal\\":{}}}","slots":["board06445"]}', type: 'WALLET_SPEND_ACTION' }

[dckc]

@samsiegart meanwhile, the fact that you were able to get a vote passed using the auctioneer contract instance shows that this PR is doing what it's designed to do.

[samsiegart]

@dckc Perfect, changing to 'new bid' fixes it and I'm seeing Error: not accepting offer with description "new bid"

[Chris-Hibbert]

TimerBrand has a different API from ERTP Brands. Are you sure that no one will try to send getDisplayInfo() to all the brands in this list? I'm suspicious that this should get a different top-level category.

[dckc]

I gave it a try (8ebd8b8), but after a couple hours, it's not working and I can't figure out why.

@ivanlei suggested I timebox it. So I think I'm going ahead without it.

[Chris-Hibbert]

not good to have two variables with the same name and overlapping scopes. Can this be committee and the other be auctioneer?

[dckc]

The scopes don't overlap. That's the purpose of the { on 299: to introduce a new scope so that I don't have to think of novel names.

But ok, since you supplied novel names, will do.

[Chris-Hibbert]

I can no longer see the code (I thought github was supposed to make it straightforward to look at older versions of a PR) so I can no longer prove it, but I thought what I saw was the second scope was fully contained within the first, which is the "not good" form of overlap I was talking about. Did I mis-read it? Were the scopes fully non-overlapping?