From 006b1d4eae457c1c0fc93c2f5b714e2c59485c1d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthias Benkort <5680256+KtorZ@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 19:26:43 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] (new) CIP-0001 & CIP-9999: Cardano Problem Statements (#366) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit * Publish CIP-0001 rework, alongside the first draft of CIP-9999 * Update README.md I changed the authors list to the original authors + added MPJ. As the CIP process hardly changes beside the CPS addition I feel it is fine to merge with the added change. If there are issues regarding the addended authorship on this PR, I suggest this be submitted as a different CIP #, which can override 0001 (this could then be noted in the body of 0001) - "convenience" should not override facts, having created 0001 and the entire original CIP process, I request original authorship of 0001 be noted in the PR. 
 Co-authored-by: Frederic J <58846030+crptmppt@users.noreply.github.com> --- .github/CIP-TEMPLATE.md | 36 +++- .github/CPS-TEMPLATE.md | 31 +++ .github/badge.svg | 1 + CIP-0001/README.md | 420 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- CIP-9999/LICENSE | 395 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ CIP-9999/README.md | 194 +++++++++++++++++++ README.md | 53 +++-- 7 files changed, 997 insertions(+), 133 deletions(-) create mode 100644 .github/CPS-TEMPLATE.md create mode 100644 .github/badge.svg create mode 100644 CIP-9999/LICENSE create mode 100644 CIP-9999/README.md diff --git a/.github/CIP-TEMPLATE.md b/.github/CIP-TEMPLATE.md index c39d8f471..788ce9a31 100644 --- a/.github/CIP-TEMPLATE.md +++ b/.github/CIP-TEMPLATE.md @@ -1,26 +1,42 @@ --- CIP: ? Title: ? -Authors: John Doe -Status: Draft -Type: Core | Process | Informational +Category: ? +Status: Proposed +Authors: + - John Doe +Implementors: [] +Discussions: + - https://github.com/cardano-foundation/cips/pulls/? Created: YYYY-MM-DD License: CC-BY-4.0 --- -## Abstract +## Abstract + -## Motivation +## Motivation: why is this CIP necessary? + -## Specification +## Specification + -## Rationale +## Rationale: how does this CIP achieve its goals? + +It must also explain how the proposal affects the backward compatibility of existing solutions when applicable. If the proposal responds to a CPS, the 'Rationale' section should explain how it addresses the CPS, and answer any questions that the CPS poses for potential solutions. +--> -## Copyright +## Path to Active -This CIP is licensed under [CC-BY-4.0][]. +### Acceptance Criteria + + +### Implementation Plan + + +## Copyright + [CC-BY-4.0]: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode [Apache-2.0]: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 diff --git a/.github/CPS-TEMPLATE.md b/.github/CPS-TEMPLATE.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..10b5ce007 --- /dev/null +++ b/.github/CPS-TEMPLATE.md @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ +--- +CPS: ? +Title: ? +Status: Open +Category: ? +Authors: + - John Doe +Proposed Solutions: [] +Discussions: + - https://github.com/cardano-foundation/cips/pulls/? +Created: YYYY-MM-DD +--- + +## Abstract + + +## Problem + + +## Use cases + + +## Goals + + +## Open Questions + diff --git a/.github/badge.svg b/.github/badge.svg new file mode 100644 index 000000000..9996e9c39 --- /dev/null +++ b/.github/badge.svg @@ -0,0 +1 @@ + diff --git a/CIP-0001/README.md b/CIP-0001/README.md index fd159fd8b..50629ff4f 100644 --- a/CIP-0001/README.md +++ b/CIP-0001/README.md @@ -1,119 +1,304 @@ --- CIP: 1 -Title: CIP process -Authors: Frederic Johnson , Sebastien Guillemot , Matthias Benkort , Duncan Coutts +Title: Cardano Improvement Proposals Status: Active -Type: Process +Category: Meta +Authors: + - Frederic Johnson + - Sebastien Guillemot + - Matthias Benkort + - Duncan Coutts + - Michael Peyton Jones +Implementors: N/A +Discussions: + - https://github.com/cardano-foundation/cips/pull/366 + - https://github.com/cardano-foundation/cips/pull/331 + - https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/3da306f3bfe89fa7de8fe1bf7a436682aeee25c5/CIP-0001#abstract Created: 2020-03-21 License: CC-BY-4.0 --- +# CIP-0001: Cardano Improvement Proposals + ## Abstract -A Cardano Improvement Proposal (CIP) is a formalized design document for the Cardano community. It provides information or describes a new feature for the Cardano network, its processes, or environment concisely and technically sufficiently. In this CIP, we tell what a CIP is, how the CIP process functions, and how users should go about proposing, discussing and structuring a CIP. +A Cardano Improvement Proposal (CIP) is a formalised design document for the Cardano community and the name of the process by which such documents are produced and listed. A CIP provides information or describes a change to the Cardano ecosystem, processes, or environment concisely and in sufficient technical detail. In this CIP, we explain what a CIP is; how the CIP process functions; the role of the CIP Editors; and how users should go about proposing, discussing and structuring a CIP. -The Cardano Foundation intends CIPs to be the primary mechanisms for proposing new features, collecting community input on an issue, and documenting design decisions that have gone into Cardano. Plus, because CIPs are text files in a versioned repository, their revision history is the historical record of the feature proposal. +The Cardano Foundation intends CIPs to be the primary mechanisms for proposing new features, collecting community input on an issue, and documenting design decisions that have gone into Cardano. Plus, because CIPs are text files in a versioned repository, their revision history is the historical record of significant changes affecting Cardano. -## Motivation +## Motivation: why is this CIP necessary? -CIPs come to address mainly two challenges: +CIPs aim to address two challenges mainly: 1. The need for various parties to agree on a common approach to ease the interoperability of tools or interfaces. 2. The need to propose and discuss changes to the protocol or established practice of the ecosystem. -The CIP process does not _by itself_ offer any form of governance. Yet, it is a crucial, community-driven component of the governance decision pipeline as it helps to collect thoughts and proposals in an organized fashion. +The CIP process does not _by itself_ offer any form of governance. For example, it does not govern the process by which proposed changes to the Cardano protocol are implemented and deployed. Yet, it is a crucial, community-driven component of the governance decision pipeline as it helps to collect thoughts and proposals in an organised fashion. Additionally, specific projects may choose to actively engage with the CIP process for some or all changes to their project. ## Specification -### Types - -Type | Description ---- | --- -Core | A core CIP describes a change affecting the Cardano blockchain's core components. For instance, a change in the ledger rules, a modification of the on-the-wire binary format or adjustments to the rewards and incentives strategy. -Process | A process defines a common standard to follow to achieve a certain degree of interoperability between various actors. It can be a formal document describing a specific procedure or a set of recommendations/guidelines on one particular topic. -Informational | An informational CIP documents a particular design decision. These are often written a posteriori to address a gap in understanding and knowledge sharing. - -### Structure - -Each CIP must have the following parts: - -Name | Description +### Table of Contents + +- [Document](#document) + - [Structure](#structure) + - [Header Preamble](#header-preamble) + - [Repository Organization](#repository-organization) + - [Licensing](#licensing) + - [Statuses](#statuses) + - [Status: Proposed](#statuses-proposed) + - [Status: Active](#statuses-active) + - [Status: Inactive](#statuses-inactive) + - [Categories](#categories) + - [Project Enlisting](#project-enlisting) +- [Process](#process) + - [1. Early Stage](#1-early-stages) + - [1.a. Authors open a pull request](#1a-authors-open-a-pull-request) + - [1.b. Authors seek feedback](#1b-authors-seek-feedback) + - [2. Editors' role](#2-editors-role) + - [2.a. Triage in bi-weekly meetings](#2a-triage-in-bi-weekly-meetings) + - [2.b. Reviews](#2b-reviews) + - [3. Merging CIPs in the repository](#3-merging-cips-in-the-repository) + - [4. Implementors work towards Active status following their 'Implementation Plan'](#4-implementors-work-towards-active-status-following-their-implementation-plan) +- [Editors](#editors) + - [Missions](#missions) + - [Reviews](#reviews) + - [Nomination](#nomination) + +### Document + +#### Structure + +A CIP is, first and foremost, a document which proposes a solution to a well-defined problem. Documents are [Markdown][] files with a _Preamble_ and a set of pre-defined sections. CIPs authors must abide by the general structure, though they are free to organise each section as they see fit. + +The structure of a CIP file is summarised in the table below: + +Name | Description +--- | --- +Preamble | Headers containing metadata about the CIP ([see below](#header-preamble)). +Abstract | A short (\~200 word) description of the proposed solution and the technical issue being addressed. +Motivation: why is this CIP necessary? | A clear explanation that introduces a proposal's purpose, use cases, and stakeholders. If the CIP changes an established design, it must outline design issues that motivate a rework. For complex proposals, authors must write a [Cardano Problem Statement (CPS) as defined in CIP-9999][CPS] and link to it as the `Motivation`. +Specification | The technical specification should describe the proposed improvement in sufficient technical detail. In particular, it should provide enough information that an implementation can be performed solely based on the design outlined in the CIP. A complete and unambiguous design is necessary to facilitate multiple interoperable implementations. +Rationale: how does this CIP achieve its goals? | The rationale fleshes out the specification by describing what motivated the design and what led to particular design decisions. It should describe alternate designs considered and related work. The rationale should provide evidence of consensus within the community and discuss significant objections or concerns raised during the discussion.

It must also explain how the proposal affects the backward compatibility of existing solutions when applicable. If the proposal responds to a [CPS][], the 'Rationale' section should explain how it addresses the CPS and answer any questions that the CPS poses for potential solutions. +Path to Active | Organised in two sub-sections:
Acceptance Criteria
Describes what are the acceptance criteria whereby a proposal becomes _'Active'_.
Implementation Plan
A plan to meet those criteria. Or `N/A` if not applicable. See [Status: Proposed](#status-proposed) for detail. +Copyright | The CIP must be explicitly licensed under acceptable copyright terms ([see below](#licensing)). + +##### Header Preamble + +Each CIP must begin with a YAML key:value style header preamble (also known as _front matter data_), preceded and followed by three hyphens (`---`). + +Field | Description --- | --- -Preamble | Headers containing metadata about the CIP ([see below](#header-preamble)). -Abstract | A short (\~200 word) description of the technical issue. -Motivation | A clear and short explanation that introduces the reason behind a proposal. Changing an established design, must outline design issues that motivate a rework. -Specification | The technical specification should describe the syntax and semantics of any new feature. The specification should be detailed enough to allow competing, interoperable implementations. -Rationale | The rationale fleshes out the specification by describing what motivated the design and what led to particular design decisions. It should describe alternate designs considered and related work. The rationale should provide evidence of consensus within the community and discuss important objections or concerns raised during the discussion. It must also explain how the proposal affects the backward compatibility of existing solutions when applicable. -Path to Active | A reference implementation, observable metrics or anything showing the acceptance of the proposal in the community. Any CIP must have an approved 'Path to Active' before it can move to 'Active'. It acts as a high-level roadmap for the proposal. -Copyright | The CIP must be explicitly licensed under acceptable copyright terms ([see below](#licensing)). - -
- Header preamble - -Each CIP must begin with an [RFC 822](https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc822.txt) key:value style header preamble (also known as 'front matter data'), preceded and followed by three hyphens (`---`). - -Field | Description ---- | --- -`CIP` | CIP number (without leading 0), or "\?" before being assigned -`Title` | A succinct and descriptive title -`Authors` | Comma-separated list of authors' real names and email addresses (e.g. John Doe ). -`Status` | Draft \| Proposed \| Active \| Obsolete -`Type` | Core \| Process \| Informational -`Created` | date created on, in ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD) format -`License` | abbreviation of an approved license(s) +`CIP` | The CIP number (without leading 0), or "\?" before being assigned +`Title` | A succinct and descriptive title +`Status` | Proposed \| Active \| Inactive (.._reason_..) +`Category` | One of the registered categories covering one area of the ecosystem. +`Authors` | A list of authors' real names and email addresses (e.g. John Doe ) +`Implementors` | A list of implementors committed to delivering an implementation of the proposal, when applicable. `N/A` when not applicable and `[]` when there's currently no implementor. +`Discussions` | A list of links where major technical discussions regarding this CIP happened. Links should include any discussion before submission, and _must_ include a link to the pull request that created the CIP and any pull request that modifies it. +`Solution-To` | A list of [CPS][] that this CIP addresses, if any. Omitted when not applicable. +`Created` | Date created on, in ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD) format +`License` | Abbreviation of an approved license(s) For example: ```yaml --- CIP: 1 -Title: CIP process -Authors: Frederic Johnson , Sebastien Guillemot , Matthias Benkort , Duncan Coutts +Title: Cardano Improvement Proposals Status: Active -Type: Process +Category: Meta +Authors: + - Frederic Johnson + - Sebastien Guillemot + - Matthias Benkort + - Duncan Coutts +Implementors: N/A +Discussions: + - https://github.com/cardano-foundation/cips/pulls/1 Created: 2020-03-21 License: CC-BY-4.0 --- ``` -
+> **Note** A reference template is available in [.github/CIP-TEMPLATE.md][CIP-TEMPLATE.md] + +##### Repository Organization + +A CIP must be stored in a specific folder named after its number (4-digit, left-padded with `0`) and in a file called `README.md`. Before a number is assigned, use `????` as a placeholder number (thus naming new folders as `CIP-????`). After a number has been assigned, rename the folder. + +Additional supporting files (such as diagrams, binary specifications, dialect grammars, JSON schemas etc.) may be added to the CIP's folder under freely chosen names. + +For example: + +``` +CIP-0010 +├── README.md +├── registry.json +└── registry.schema.json + +``` + +##### Licensing + +CIPs are licensed in the public domain. Moreso, they must be licensed under one of the following licenses. Each new CIP must identify at least one acceptable license in its preamble. In addition, each license must be referenced by its respective abbreviation below in the _"Copyright"_ section. + +| Purpose | Recommended License | +| --- | --- | +| For software / code | Apache-2.0 - [Apache License, version 2.0][Apache-2.0] | +| For documentation | CC-BY-4.0 - [Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License][CC-BY-4.0] | + +> **Warning** +> +> All licenses not explicitly included in the above lists are not acceptable terms for a Cardano Improvement Proposal unless a later CIP extends this one to add them. + +#### Statuses + +CIPs can have three statuses: `Proposed`, `Active` or `Inactive`. [The CIP Process section](#process) highlights how CIPs move through these statuses; no CIP should be given one of these statuses without satisfying the criteria described here below. + +> **Note** There is no "draft" status: a proposal which has not been merged (and hence exists in a PR) is a draft CIP. Draft CIPs should include the status they are aiming for on acceptance. Typically, but not always, this will be _'Proposed'_. + +##### Status: Proposed + +A _'Proposed'_ CIP is any CIP that meets the essential CIP criteria but is not yet _'Active'_. The criteria that must meet a CIP to be merged as _'Proposed'_ are: + +- It must contain all the sections described in [Structure](#structure). +- The quality of the content must be to the Editors’ satisfaction. That means it must be grammatically sound, well-articulated and demonstrates noticeable efforts in terms of completeness and level of detail. +- Its technical soundness should have been established. Where necessary, this may require review by particular experts and addressing their concerns. Note that the requirement is that the proposal makes sense (i.e. be technically sound), yet no consulted experts need to think it is a good idea. +- It must have a valid _'Path to Active'_. This particular section must be subdivided into two sub-sections: + + - _'Acceptance Criteria'_ + + This sub-section must define a list of criteria by which the proposal can become active. Criteria must relate to observable metrics or deliverables and be reviewed by editors and project maintainers when applicable. For example: "The changes to the ledger rules are implemented and deployed on Cardano mainnet by a majority of the network", or "The following key projects have implemented support for this standard". + + - _'Implementation Plan'_ + + This sub-section should define the plan by which a proposal will meet its acceptance criteria, when applicable. More, proposals that require implementation work in a specific project may indicate one or more implementors. Implementors must sign off on the plan and be referenced in the document's preamble. + + In particular, an implementation that requires a hard-fork should explicitly mention it in its _'Implementation Plan'_. + +##### Status: Active + +An _'Active'_ CIP has taken effect according to the criteria defined in its _'Path to Active'_ section. Said differently, each CIP defines by which criteria it can become _'Active'_ and those criteria are included in the review process. Exact criteria thereby depends on the nature of the CIP, typically: + +- For CIPs that relate to particular projects or pieces of technology, it becomes _'Active'_ by being implemented and released; +- For changes to the Cardano protocol, a CIP becomes _'Active'_ by being live on the Cardano mainnet; +- For ecosystem standards, it means gaining sufficient and visible adoption in the community. + +A proposal that is _'Active'_ is considered complete and is synonymous with "production readiness" when it comes to the maturity of a solution. _'Active'_ CIPs will not be updated substantially (apart from minor edits, proofreading and added precisions). They can, nevertheless, be challenged through new proposals if need be. + +##### Status: Inactive + +An _'Inactive'_ CIP describes any proposal that does not fit into the other types. A CIP can therefore be _'Inactive'_ for various reasons (e.g. obsolete, superseded, abandoned). Hence the status must indicate a justification between parentheses; for example: + +``` +Status: Inactive (superseded by CIP-0001) +``` + +#### Categories + +CIPs are classified into distinct categories that help organise (and thus, find) them. Categories are meant to be flexible and evolve as new domains emerge. Authors may leave the category as `?` should they not be sure under which category their proposal falls; editors will eventually assign one or reject the proposal altogether should it relate to an area where the CIP process does not apply. + +At present, we consider the following list of initial categories: -
- Licensing +Category | Description +--- | --- +Meta | Designates meta-CIPs, such as this one, which typically serves another category or group of categories. +Reward-Sharing Scheme | For CIPs discussing the reward & incentive mechanisms of the protocol. +Ledger | For proposals regarding the Cardano ledger. +Wallets | For standardisation across wallets (hardware, full-node or light). +Catalyst | For proposals affecting Project Catalyst or the Jörmungandr project. +Tokens | About tokens (fungible or non-fungible) and minting policies in general. +Metadata | For proposals around metadata (on-chain or off-chain). +Tools | A broad category for ecosystem tools not falling into any other category. -The following licenses are accepted. Each new CIP must identify at least one acceptable license in its preamble. In addition, each license must be referenced by its respective abbreviation below. +Additionally, projects of the ecosystem may explicitly enlist as new categories. The following section describes how projects can engage with the CIP process. -#### Recommended licenses +Registered categories for explicitly enlisted projects are otherwise listed below. -- for software / code: Apache-2.0: [Apache License, version 2.0](http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0) -- for documentation: CC-BY-4.0: [Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode) +Category | Description +--- | --- +Plutus | Changes or additions to Plutus, following the process described in [CIP-0035][] -#### Unacceptable licenses +#### Project Enlisting -All licenses not explicitly included in the above lists are not acceptable terms for a Cardano Improvement Proposal unless a later CIP extends this one to add them. +Projects of the Cardano ecosystem that intend to follow the CIP process must explicitly enlist themselves and commit to the following: -
+- a) allocating time to **review** proposals from actors of the community when solicited by editors (i.e. after one first round of reviews); +- b) defining additional rules and processes whereby external actors can engage with their project as part of the CIP process; +- c) defining boundaries within their project for which the CIP process does apply; +- d) writing CIPs for significant changes introduced in their projects when it applies. -

- A reference template is available in .github/CIP-TEMPLATE.md. -

+Enlisting for the CIP process happens by creating a CIP. That CIP must encapsulate the information listed above, as well as any other pieces of information deemed helpful to future authors. Of course, only team members of a target project can author such a proposal. -### Statuses +> **Warning** A positive review by the maintainers of a project does not constitute a commitment to implement the CIP. It is still the CIP author's responsibility to create an implementation plan and identify implementors. The maintainers of the project may volunteer to participate in implementation, but also may not. Projects' maintainers ultimately define how a proposal can move from the state of idea (i.e. CIP) to actual implementation work. We, however, expect each team that enlists in the CIP process to provide clarity on these elements as they enlist. -From its creation and onwards, a proposal evolves around the following statuses. +Editors occasionally invite project maintainers to speak during review meetings and solicit them for ultimate approvals of proposals affecting a project under their authority. Said differently, CIPs that concern (part of) an enlisted project will only be merged after explicit acceptance of the enlisted reviewers. -Status | Description ---- | --- -Draft | An implicit status given to newly proposed CIPs that haven't yet been validated or reviewed. Historically, some CIPs have been merged as 'Draft'. -Proposed | Any proposal which is not yet active but that has been reviewed, accepted and is now working towards acceptance. A 'Proposed' CIP must have a clear path to 'Active' defined and approved which defines the criteria it must meet in order to become 'Active'. -Active | The proposal has completed all steps needed for its activation. Said differently, it means observable metrics showing its adoption in the ecosystem. -Obsolete | A retired CIP or one made obsolete by a newer CIP. -Rejected | A proposal rejected for various reasons, but kept nonetheless for the record. It may also indicate ideas that were considered but deemed invalid, as a way to inform future authors. +> **Note** Optionally, projects may show their enlisting using the following badge on their introductory README: ![](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/master/.github/badge.svg) +> +> ```md +> ![https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/master/.github/badge.svg) +> ``` -### Repository organization +### Process -CIP editors should strive to keep up to date with general technical conversations and Cardano proposals. For each new draft proposal submitted on [cardano-foundation/CIPs](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pulls) an editor might review it as follows: +#### 1. Early stages + +##### 1.a. Authors open a pull request + +Proposals must be submitted to the [cardano-foundation/CIPs][Repository] repository as a pull request named after the proposal's title. The pull request title **should not** include a CIP number (and use `?` instead as number); the editors will assign one. Discussions may precede a proposal. Early reviews and discussions streamline the process down the line. + +> **Note** Proposals addressing a specific CPS should also be listed in the corresponding CPS header, in _'Proposed Solutions'_, to keep track of ongoing work. + + +##### 1.b. Authors seek feedback + +Authors shall champion their proposals. The CIP process is a collaborative effort, which implies discussions between different groups of individuals. While editors may provide specific inputs and help reach out to experts, authors shall actively seek feedback from the community to help move their proposal forward. + +Discussions and comments shall mainly happen on Github in pull requests. When discussed on other mediums, we expect authors or participants to report back a summary of their discussions to the original pull request to keep track of the most critical conversations in a written form and all in one place. + +As much as possible, commenters/reviewers shall remain unbiased in their judgement and assess proposals in good faith. Authors have the right to reject comments or feedback but **are strongly encouraged to address concerns in their 'Rationale' section**. Ultimately, CIP editors shall make the last call concerning the various statements made on a proposal and their treatment by the author(s). + +By opening pull requests or posting comments, commenters and authors agree to our [Code of Conduct][CoC]. Any comment infringing this code of conduct shall be removed or altered without prior notice. + +#### 2. Editors' role + +##### 2.a. Triage in bi-weekly meetings + +CIP editors meet regularly in [a public Discord server][Discord] to go through newly proposed ideas in a triage phase. As a result of a triage, editors acknowledge new CIPs, and briefly review their preamble. Editors also assign numbers to newly proposed CIPs during this phase. Incidentally, the triage allows new CIPs to get visibility for potential reviews. + +##### 2.b. Reviews + +In every meeting, editors will also review in more depth some chosen CIPs (based on their readiness and the stability of the discussions) and assess if they meet the criteria to be merged in their aimed status. + +During review sessions, editors will regularly invite project maintainers or actors from the ecosystem who are deemed relevant to the meeting's agenda. However, meetings are open and held in public to encourage anyone interested in participating. + +A dedicated Discord channel may also be created for some long-running discussions to support quick chats and progress on particular topics (while still being regularly summarised on the repository). + +#### 3. Merging CIPs in the repository + +Once a proposal has reached all requirements for its target status (as explained in [Statuses](#Statuses)) and has been sufficiently and faithfully discussed by community members, it is merged with its target status. + +> **Warning** Ideas deemed unsound shall be rejected with justifications or withdrawn by the authors. Similarly, proposals that appear abandoned by their authors shall be rejected until resurrected by their authors or another community member. + +CIPs are generally merged with the status _'Proposed'_ until they meet their _'Path to Active'_ requirements. In some rare cases (mainly when written after the facts and resulting in a broad consensus), proposals may be merged as _'Active'_ immediately. + +Each proposal is unique and has a bespoke _'Path to Active'_, which must be reviewed case-by-case. There must be sufficient time between the first appearance of a proposal and its merge into the repository to ensure enough opportunity for community members to review it. + +#### 4. Implementors work towards Active status following their 'Implementation Plan' + +Once merged, implementors shall execute the CIP's _'Implementation Plan'_, if any. If a proposal has no implementors or no _'Implementation Plan'_, it may simply remain as _'Proposed'_ in the repository. + +> **Warning** It is perfectly fine to submit ideas in the repository with no concrete implementation plan, yet they should be treated as such: ideas. + +Besides, once all of the _'Path to Active'_ requirements have been met, authors shall make another pull request to change their CIP's status to _'Active'_. Editors may also do this on occasion. + +### Editors + +#### Missions + +CIP Editors safeguard the CIP process: they form a group enforcing the process described in this document and facilitating conversations between community actors. CIP editors should strive to keep up to date with general technical discussions and Cardano proposals. For each new draft proposal submitted on [cardano-foundation/CIPs][PullRequest] an editor might review it as follows: - Read the proposal to check if it is ready, sound, and complete. - Check if it has been [properly formatted](#structure). @@ -121,65 +306,108 @@ CIP editors should strive to keep up to date with general technical conversation - Ensure the motivation behind the CIP is valid and that design choices have relevant justifications or rationale. - Confirm licensing terms are acceptable. - Assign a CIP number -- Suggest a different type for a CIP +- Assign a given category to help with searching - Request wording/grammar adjustments CIPs that do not meet a sufficient level of quality or don't abide by the process described in this document will be rejected until their authors address review comments. -Note that editors may provide technical feedback on proposals in some cases, although they aren't expected to be the sole technical reviewers of proposals. CIPs are, before anything, a community-driven effort. While editors are here to facilitate the discussion and mediate debates, they aren't necessarily technical experts on all subjects covered by CIPs. Therefore, the editors' duty also comprises finding relevant technical experts to review proposals. CIPs authors are also encouraged to reach out to known experts to demonstrate their good faith and openness when they champion a proposal. +#### Reviews + +Note that editors **may** provide technical feedback on proposals in some cases, although they aren't expected to be the sole technical reviewers of proposals. CIPs are, before anything, a community-driven effort. While editors are here to facilitate the discussion and mediate debates, they aren't necessarily technical experts on all subjects covered by CIPs. + +Therefore, CIPs authors are encouraged to reach out to known experts to demonstrate their good faith and openness when they champion a proposal. Editors may help with such efforts but cannot be expected to do this alone. + +#### Nomination + +Existing editors or the community may nominate new editors, provided they have proven to be already existing and active contributors to the CIP process and are ready to commit some of their time to the CIP process regularly. + +The missions of an editor include, but aren't exclusively limited to, any of the tasks listed above. Active members that seek to become listed editors may also come forth and let it be known. Any application will take the form of a pull request updating this document with a justification as the pull request's description. Current editors are listed here below: -| Frederic Johnson
[@crptmppt][] | Matthias Benkort
[@KtorZ][] | Sebastien Guillemot
[@SebastienGllmt][] | Robert Phair
[@rphair][] | -| --- | --- | --- | --- | +| Matthias Benkort
[@KtorZ][] | Sebastien Guillemot
[@SebastienGllmt][] | Frederic Johnson
[@crptmppt][] | Robert Phair
[@rphair][] | +| --- | --- | --- | --- | -[@crptmppt]: https://github.com/crptmppt [@KtorZ]: https://github.com/KtorZ [@SebastienGllmt]: https://github.com/SebastienGllmt +[@crptmppt]: https://github.com/crptmppt [@rphair]: https://github.com/rphair -### Progression +## Rationale: how does this CIP achieve its goals? -##### 1. Authors open pull requests with their proposal +### Key changes from CIP-0001 (version 1) -Proposals must be submitted to the [cardano-foundation/CIPs](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pulls) repository as a pull request named after the proposal's title. Ideally, the community should have already discussed a proposal before its submission. Early reviews streamline the process down the line -- although it isn't a strict requirement. +#### Introduction of Cardano Problem Statements -##### 2. Editors triage proposals bi-weekly, community technical reviews ensue. +A significant friction point regarding complex CIPs is often how the main problem is stated. The _'Motivation'_ is often insufficient (or simply underused) to describe various aspects of a problem, its scope, and its constraints. This lack of clarity leads, in the end, to poorly defined issues and debates over solutions that feel unclear amongst different participants. -CIP editors meet regularly (on a 2-week cadence) in [a public Discord server](https://discord.gg/Jy9YM69Ezf) to go through newly proposed ideas in a "triage" phase. As a result of a triage, editors acknowledge new CIPs, and briefly review their preamble. It is recommended not yet to assign a number and pick `?` when first opening a proposal. Instead, editors will allocate a temporary number as part of the triage phase. The triage also allows new CIPs to get visibility for potential reviews. +The introduction of [CIP-9999: Cardano Problem Statements][CIP-9999] addresses this gap by introducing a formal template and structure around problem statements. However, requiring any CIP to be preceded by a CPS would likely be overkill and become an obstacle to the overall adoption of the CIP process for more straightforward problems. At this stage, it is reasonable to think either (a) that CIP authors would foresee the complexity and state their problem as a CPS beforehand or (b) that editors or reviewers will require authors to write a CPS to clarify a perhaps ambiguous motivation on complex CIPs. -In every meeting, editors will also review in more depth some chosen CIPs (based on their readiness and the stability of the discussions about them). The goal of a review is to assess points mentioned earlier and, in particular, judge whether a CIP is reaching a consensus within the community. A proposal must also have an approved (by the editors) path to 'Active', demonstrating the adoption of the CIP to move forward. Each proposal is unique and has a bespoke path to 'Active', which must then be reviewed case-by-case. +We also anticipate project maintainers or community actors will write standalone CPS to document well-known issues for which the design space is still to be explored. -##### 3. Once reviewed, proposals are merged as 'Proposed' or 'Rejected' +#### Explicit enlisting -Once accepted, CIPs are merged with the status `Proposed` until they meet their path to 'Active' requirements. In some cases (mainly in the case of informational CIPs), proposals may be merged as `Active` immediately. In general, however, there must be sufficient time between the first appearance of a proposal and its acceptance into the repository to ensure enough opportunity for community members to review it. +A recurring pain point with the previous CIP process was the lack of clear ownership/accountability of some proposals affecting remote parts of the ecosystem. On several occasions, proposals from community members have concerned, for example, core components of the Cardano architecture. However, those proposals have been hard to move forward with and to either reject or turn into concrete action steps. Authors usually do not have the technical proficiency required to implement them and rely on the core engineering team in charge of projects to do so. Thus, explicit compliance and collaboration of those engineering teams are necessary to propose changes affecting their work. -Ideas deemed unsound shall be rejected with justifications or withdrawn by the authors. Similarly, proposals that appear abandoned by their authors shall be rejected until resurrected by their authors or another community member. +By asking teams to explicitly state their compliance with the CIP process with clear, accountable owners (as individuals), it becomes plausible to now establish a dialogue between community members and technical leadership responsible for specific ecosystem projects. Furthermore, projects that, on the contrary, do not seek to participate in CIP or receive contributions in the form of CIP/CPS are automatically taken out of this process, saving time and energy for both reviewers and authors. -##### 4. Authors work towards completeness following their path to 'Active' +#### Nomination of new editors -Once merged, authors shall champion their proposals and work towards their transition to active. In particular, once all of the path to 'Active' requirements have been met, authors, shall make another pull request to change their CIP's status to `Active`. Editors may also do this on occasion. +The _'Editors'_ section now details how to become a CIP editor. The process aims to be simple and define those involved the most with editorship tasks as editors. Thus, being an active contributor to the CIP process as a prerequisite only makes sense. We want to leave the room open for either existing editors to refer an existing community as an editor or for community members to formulate that request explicitly. -### Comments +There are no delays or number of contributions necessary to pretend to become an editor. Those criteria are often less relevant than others and more subjective, such as the quality of one's participation or their relevance. Since editors also need to work with one another in the end, it seems logical that existing editors have their final say about whom they intend to work with. -Discussions and comments shall mainly happen on Github in pull requests. Outcomes of bi-weekly meetings shall be reported as bullet-point feedback to CIPs authors. When discussed on other mediums, we expect authors or participants to report back a summary of their discussions to the original pull request to keep track of the most critical conversations in a written form and all in one place. A dedicated Discord channel may also be created for some long-running discussions to support quick chats and progress on particular topics (while still being regularly summarized on the repository). +#### Removal of `type` in the preamble -As much as possible, commenters/reviewers shall remain unbiased in their judgement and assess proposals in good faith. Authors have the right to reject comments or feedback but are strongly encouraged to address concerns in their 'Rationale' section. Ultimately, CIP editors shall make the last call concerning the various statements made on a proposal and their treatment by the author(s). +The `type` field in the header has shown to be: -By opening pull requests or posting comments, commenters and authors agree to our [Code of Conduct](../CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md). Any comment infringing this code of conduct shall be removed or altered without prior notice. +- confusing (often authors are getting it wrong); +- not-too-useful (as a `type` tells you very little about the nature of the CIP). -## Rationale +An ad-hoc classification by non-rigid categories, which may evolve over time to reflect ecosystem areas, seems better suited. Therefore, we do not require authors to categorise their CIPs; instead, categories will be added and maintained by editors as a side task atop the CIP process. -- This is the second major iteration of this document, which aims at simplifying the process and capturing the current reality of the CIP process. Over time, the process has evolved to reach the form described above. While some points may still need to be addressed, we will address them in future updates or extensions to this CIP. +#### Simplification of the statuses -- Status has been simplified to the minimum as experience has proven a thinner granularity unnecessary. +Over time we've learnt that the valuable information a status should convey is really about the readiness of a CIP, especially regarding standards. For a long time, many CIPs have lived as `Draft` despite some being used in dozens of systems. Consequently, the `status` has lost a bit of its meaning. The frontier between `Draft` and `Proposed` hasn't always been clear, and it has proven challenging to come up with good statuses to describe all possible rejections. So instead, the current division of statuses is as simple-as-it-can-be and remains flexible regarding rejections. -- The choice of a code of conduct has been made following other popular open source initiatives. It serves as a good, unilaterally accepted foundation which can be later revisited if necessary. +### Choice of CoC + +The choice of a code of conduct follows other popular open source initiatives. It serves as a good, unilaterally accepted foundation which can be later revisited if necessary. ## Path to Active -N/A +### Acceptance criteria + +- [x] The proposal has been reviewed by the community and sufficiently advertised on various channels. + - [x] Cardano Forum + - [x] IOG Technical Community Discord + - [x] Twitter + - [x] Reddit + - [x] Cardano Summit 2022 + - [x] IO ScotFest 2022 + +- [x] All major concerns or feedback have been addressed. The document is as unambiguous as it can be and it outlines a process that a supermajority of reviewers is happy to follow. + +### Implementation Plan + +- [ ] Rework existing draft CIPs to adopt this new format and process. In particular, CIPs affecting enlisted projects should be brought to the attention of the respective project maintainers. +- [ ] Possibly, edit / align old CIPs preambles and sections to at least reflect also this new format. ## Copyright -This CIP is licensed under [CC-BY-4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode). +This CIP is licensed under [CC-BY-4.0][]. + +[Apache-2.0]: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 +[CC-BY-4.0]: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode +[CIP-0035]: https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/CIP-0035 +[CIP-9999]: https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/CIP-9999 +[CIP-TEMPLATE.md]: https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/.github/CIP-TEMPLATE.md +[CODE_OWNERS]: https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/about-code-owners +[CPS]: https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/CIP-9999 +[Discussions:editors]: https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/discussions/new?category=editors +[Markdown]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markdown +[PullRequest]: https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pulls +[RFC 822]: https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc822.txt +[Repository]: https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pulls +[CoC]: https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md +[Discord]: https://discord.gg/Jy9YM69Ezf diff --git a/CIP-9999/LICENSE b/CIP-9999/LICENSE new file mode 100644 index 000000000..f987f3daa --- /dev/null +++ b/CIP-9999/LICENSE @@ -0,0 +1,395 @@ +Attribution 4.0 International + +======================================================================= + +Creative Commons Corporation ("Creative Commons") is not a law firm and +does not provide legal services or legal advice. Distribution of +Creative Commons public licenses does not create a lawyer-client or +other relationship. Creative Commons makes its licenses and related +information available on an "as-is" basis. Creative Commons gives no +warranties regarding its licenses, any material licensed under their +terms and conditions, or any related information. Creative Commons +disclaims all liability for damages resulting from their use to the +fullest extent possible. + +Using Creative Commons Public Licenses + +Creative Commons public licenses provide a standard set of terms and +conditions that creators and other rights holders may use to share +original works of authorship and other material subject to copyright +and certain other rights specified in the public license below. The +following considerations are for informational purposes only, are not +exhaustive, and do not form part of our licenses. + + Considerations for licensors: Our public licenses are + intended for use by those authorized to give the public + permission to use material in ways otherwise restricted by + copyright and certain other rights. Our licenses are + irrevocable. Licensors should read and understand the terms + and conditions of the license they choose before applying it. + Licensors should also secure all rights necessary before + applying our licenses so that the public can reuse the + material as expected. Licensors should clearly mark any + material not subject to the license. This includes other CC- + licensed material, or material used under an exception or + limitation to copyright. More considerations for licensors: + wiki.creativecommons.org/Considerations_for_licensors + + Considerations for the public: By using one of our public + licenses, a licensor grants the public permission to use the + licensed material under specified terms and conditions. If + the licensor's permission is not necessary for any reason--for + example, because of any applicable exception or limitation to + copyright--then that use is not regulated by the license. Our + licenses grant only permissions under copyright and certain + other rights that a licensor has authority to grant. Use of + the licensed material may still be restricted for other + reasons, including because others have copyright or other + rights in the material. A licensor may make special requests, + such as asking that all changes be marked or described. + Although not required by our licenses, you are encouraged to + respect those requests where reasonable. More considerations + for the public: + wiki.creativecommons.org/Considerations_for_licensees + +======================================================================= + +Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License + +By exercising the Licensed Rights (defined below), You accept and agree +to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Creative Commons +Attribution 4.0 International Public License ("Public License"). To the +extent this Public License may be interpreted as a contract, You are +granted the Licensed Rights in consideration of Your acceptance of +these terms and conditions, and the Licensor grants You such rights in +consideration of benefits the Licensor receives from making the +Licensed Material available under these terms and conditions. + + +Section 1 -- Definitions. + + a. Adapted Material means material subject to Copyright and Similar + Rights that is derived from or based upon the Licensed Material + and in which the Licensed Material is translated, altered, + arranged, transformed, or otherwise modified in a manner requiring + permission under the Copyright and Similar Rights held by the + Licensor. For purposes of this Public License, where the Licensed + Material is a musical work, performance, or sound recording, + Adapted Material is always produced where the Licensed Material is + synched in timed relation with a moving image. + + b. Adapter's License means the license You apply to Your Copyright + and Similar Rights in Your contributions to Adapted Material in + accordance with the terms and conditions of this Public License. + + c. Copyright and Similar Rights means copyright and/or similar rights + closely related to copyright including, without limitation, + performance, broadcast, sound recording, and Sui Generis Database + Rights, without regard to how the rights are labeled or + categorized. For purposes of this Public License, the rights + specified in Section 2(b)(1)-(2) are not Copyright and Similar + Rights. + + d. Effective Technological Measures means those measures that, in the + absence of proper authority, may not be circumvented under laws + fulfilling obligations under Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright + Treaty adopted on December 20, 1996, and/or similar international + agreements. + + e. Exceptions and Limitations means fair use, fair dealing, and/or + any other exception or limitation to Copyright and Similar Rights + that applies to Your use of the Licensed Material. + + f. Licensed Material means the artistic or literary work, database, + or other material to which the Licensor applied this Public + License. + + g. Licensed Rights means the rights granted to You subject to the + terms and conditions of this Public License, which are limited to + all Copyright and Similar Rights that apply to Your use of the + Licensed Material and that the Licensor has authority to license. + + h. Licensor means the individual(s) or entity(ies) granting rights + under this Public License. + + i. Share means to provide material to the public by any means or + process that requires permission under the Licensed Rights, such + as reproduction, public display, public performance, distribution, + dissemination, communication, or importation, and to make material + available to the public including in ways that members of the + public may access the material from a place and at a time + individually chosen by them. + + j. Sui Generis Database Rights means rights other than copyright + resulting from Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of + the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, + as amended and/or succeeded, as well as other essentially + equivalent rights anywhere in the world. + + k. You means the individual or entity exercising the Licensed Rights + under this Public License. Your has a corresponding meaning. + + +Section 2 -- Scope. + + a. License grant. + + 1. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, + the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, + non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to + exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to: + + a. reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or + in part; and + + b. produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material. + + 2. Exceptions and Limitations. For the avoidance of doubt, where + Exceptions and Limitations apply to Your use, this Public + License does not apply, and You do not need to comply with + its terms and conditions. + + 3. Term. The term of this Public License is specified in Section + 6(a). + + 4. Media and formats; technical modifications allowed. The + Licensor authorizes You to exercise the Licensed Rights in + all media and formats whether now known or hereafter created, + and to make technical modifications necessary to do so. The + Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any right or + authority to forbid You from making technical modifications + necessary to exercise the Licensed Rights, including + technical modifications necessary to circumvent Effective + Technological Measures. For purposes of this Public License, + simply making modifications authorized by this Section 2(a) + (4) never produces Adapted Material. + + 5. Downstream recipients. + + a. Offer from the Licensor -- Licensed Material. Every + recipient of the Licensed Material automatically + receives an offer from the Licensor to exercise the + Licensed Rights under the terms and conditions of this + Public License. + + b. No downstream restrictions. You may not offer or impose + any additional or different terms or conditions on, or + apply any Effective Technological Measures to, the + Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the + Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed + Material. + + 6. No endorsement. Nothing in this Public License constitutes or + may be construed as permission to assert or imply that You + are, or that Your use of the Licensed Material is, connected + with, or sponsored, endorsed, or granted official status by, + the Licensor or others designated to receive attribution as + provided in Section 3(a)(1)(A)(i). + + b. Other rights. + + 1. Moral rights, such as the right of integrity, are not + licensed under this Public License, nor are publicity, + privacy, and/or other similar personality rights; however, to + the extent possible, the Licensor waives and/or agrees not to + assert any such rights held by the Licensor to the limited + extent necessary to allow You to exercise the Licensed + Rights, but not otherwise. + + 2. Patent and trademark rights are not licensed under this + Public License. + + 3. To the extent possible, the Licensor waives any right to + collect royalties from You for the exercise of the Licensed + Rights, whether directly or through a collecting society + under any voluntary or waivable statutory or compulsory + licensing scheme. In all other cases the Licensor expressly + reserves any right to collect such royalties. + + +Section 3 -- License Conditions. + +Your exercise of the Licensed Rights is expressly made subject to the +following conditions. + + a. Attribution. + + 1. If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified + form), You must: + + a. retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor + with the Licensed Material: + + i. identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed + Material and any others designated to receive + attribution, in any reasonable manner requested by + the Licensor (including by pseudonym if + designated); + + ii. a copyright notice; + + iii. a notice that refers to this Public License; + + iv. a notice that refers to the disclaimer of + warranties; + + v. a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the + extent reasonably practicable; + + b. indicate if You modified the Licensed Material and + retain an indication of any previous modifications; and + + c. indicate the Licensed Material is licensed under this + Public License, and include the text of, or the URI or + hyperlink to, this Public License. + + 2. You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) in any + reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in + which You Share the Licensed Material. For example, it may be + reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or + hyperlink to a resource that includes the required + information. + + 3. If requested by the Licensor, You must remove any of the + information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A) to the extent + reasonably practicable. + + 4. If You Share Adapted Material You produce, the Adapter's + License You apply must not prevent recipients of the Adapted + Material from complying with this Public License. + + +Section 4 -- Sui Generis Database Rights. + +Where the Licensed Rights include Sui Generis Database Rights that +apply to Your use of the Licensed Material: + + a. for the avoidance of doubt, Section 2(a)(1) grants You the right + to extract, reuse, reproduce, and Share all or a substantial + portion of the contents of the database; + + b. if You include all or a substantial portion of the database + contents in a database in which You have Sui Generis Database + Rights, then the database in which You have Sui Generis Database + Rights (but not its individual contents) is Adapted Material; and + + c. You must comply with the conditions in Section 3(a) if You Share + all or a substantial portion of the contents of the database. + +For the avoidance of doubt, this Section 4 supplements and does not +replace Your obligations under this Public License where the Licensed +Rights include other Copyright and Similar Rights. + + +Section 5 -- Disclaimer of Warranties and Limitation of Liability. + + a. UNLESS OTHERWISE SEPARATELY UNDERTAKEN BY THE LICENSOR, TO THE + EXTENT POSSIBLE, THE LICENSOR OFFERS THE LICENSED MATERIAL AS-IS + AND AS-AVAILABLE, AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF + ANY KIND CONCERNING THE LICENSED MATERIAL, WHETHER EXPRESS, + IMPLIED, STATUTORY, OR OTHER. THIS INCLUDES, WITHOUT LIMITATION, + WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR + PURPOSE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, ABSENCE OF LATENT OR OTHER DEFECTS, + ACCURACY, OR THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF ERRORS, WHETHER OR NOT + KNOWN OR DISCOVERABLE. WHERE DISCLAIMERS OF WARRANTIES ARE NOT + ALLOWED IN FULL OR IN PART, THIS DISCLAIMER MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. + + b. TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, IN NO EVENT WILL THE LICENSOR BE LIABLE + TO YOU ON ANY LEGAL THEORY (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, + NEGLIGENCE) OR OTHERWISE FOR ANY DIRECT, SPECIAL, INDIRECT, + INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE, EXEMPLARY, OR OTHER LOSSES, + COSTS, EXPENSES, OR DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THIS PUBLIC LICENSE OR + USE OF THE LICENSED MATERIAL, EVEN IF THE LICENSOR HAS BEEN + ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH LOSSES, COSTS, EXPENSES, OR + DAMAGES. WHERE A LIMITATION OF LIABILITY IS NOT ALLOWED IN FULL OR + IN PART, THIS LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. + + c. The disclaimer of warranties and limitation of liability provided + above shall be interpreted in a manner that, to the extent + possible, most closely approximates an absolute disclaimer and + waiver of all liability. + + +Section 6 -- Term and Termination. + + a. This Public License applies for the term of the Copyright and + Similar Rights licensed here. However, if You fail to comply with + this Public License, then Your rights under this Public License + terminate automatically. + + b. Where Your right to use the Licensed Material has terminated under + Section 6(a), it reinstates: + + 1. automatically as of the date the violation is cured, provided + it is cured within 30 days of Your discovery of the + violation; or + + 2. upon express reinstatement by the Licensor. + + For the avoidance of doubt, this Section 6(b) does not affect any + right the Licensor may have to seek remedies for Your violations + of this Public License. + + c. For the avoidance of doubt, the Licensor may also offer the + Licensed Material under separate terms or conditions or stop + distributing the Licensed Material at any time; however, doing so + will not terminate this Public License. + + d. Sections 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 survive termination of this Public + License. + + +Section 7 -- Other Terms and Conditions. + + a. The Licensor shall not be bound by any additional or different + terms or conditions communicated by You unless expressly agreed. + + b. Any arrangements, understandings, or agreements regarding the + Licensed Material not stated herein are separate from and + independent of the terms and conditions of this Public License. + + +Section 8 -- Interpretation. + + a. For the avoidance of doubt, this Public License does not, and + shall not be interpreted to, reduce, limit, restrict, or impose + conditions on any use of the Licensed Material that could lawfully + be made without permission under this Public License. + + b. To the extent possible, if any provision of this Public License is + deemed unenforceable, it shall be automatically reformed to the + minimum extent necessary to make it enforceable. If the provision + cannot be reformed, it shall be severed from this Public License + without affecting the enforceability of the remaining terms and + conditions. + + c. No term or condition of this Public License will be waived and no + failure to comply consented to unless expressly agreed to by the + Licensor. + + d. Nothing in this Public License constitutes or may be interpreted + as a limitation upon, or waiver of, any privileges and immunities + that apply to the Licensor or You, including from the legal + processes of any jurisdiction or authority. + + +======================================================================= + +Creative Commons is not a party to its public licenses. +Notwithstanding, Creative Commons may elect to apply one of its public +licenses to material it publishes and in those instances will be +considered the “Licensor.” The text of the Creative Commons public +licenses is dedicated to the public domain under the CC0 Public Domain +Dedication. Except for the limited purpose of indicating that material +is shared under a Creative Commons public license or as otherwise +permitted by the Creative Commons policies published at +creativecommons.org/policies, Creative Commons does not authorize the +use of the trademark "Creative Commons" or any other trademark or logo +of Creative Commons without its prior written consent including, +without limitation, in connection with any unauthorized modifications +to any of its public licenses or any other arrangements, +understandings, or agreements concerning use of licensed material. For +the avoidance of doubt, this paragraph does not form part of the public +licenses. + +Creative Commons may be contacted at creativecommons.org. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/CIP-9999/README.md b/CIP-9999/README.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..51b406057 --- /dev/null +++ b/CIP-9999/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,194 @@ +--- +CIP: 9999 +Title: Cardano Problem Statements +Status: Active +Category: Meta +Authors: + - Matthias Benkort + - Michael Peyton Jones +Implementors: N/A +Discussions: + - https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pulls/366 +Created: 2022-10-14 +License: CC-BY-4.0 +--- + +# CIP-9999: Cardano Problem Statements + +## Abstract + +A Cardano Problem Statement (CPS) is a formalized document for the Cardano ecosystem and the name of the process by which such documents are produced and listed. CPSs are meant to complement CIPs and live side-by-side in the CIP repository as first-class citizens. + +> **Note** Read this CIP's number as "CIP minus 1" + +## Motivation: why is this CIP necessary? + +A common friction point regarding complex CIPs is how their main problems are stated. For example, the _'Motivation'_ section in CIPs is sometimes not sufficient -- or simply underused -- to describe the various aspects of a problem, its scope, and its constraints in the necessary detail. This lack of clarity leads, in the end, to poorly defined issues and unfruitful debates amongst participants who understand problems differently. + +The introduction of the **Cardano Problem Statements** (CPSs) addresses this gap by defining a formal template and structure around the description of problems. CPSs are meant to replace the more elaborate motivation of complex CIPs. However, they may also exist on their own as requests for proposals from ecosystem actors who've identified a problem but are yet to find any suitable solution. + +Over time, CPSs may complement grant systems that want to target well-known problems of the ecosystem; they can, for example, serve as the foundation for RFP (Request For Proposals) documents. We hope they may also help make some discussions more fluid by capturing a problem and its various constraints well. + +## Specification + +### CPS + +#### Structure + +CPSs are, first and foremost, documents that capture a problem and a set of constraints and hypotheses. Documents are [Markdown][Markdown] files with a front matter _Preamble_ and pre-defined sections. CPS authors must abide by the general structure, though they are free to organize each section as they see fit. + +The structure of a CPS file is summarized in the table below: + +Name | Description +--- | --- +Preamble | Headers containing metadata about the CPS ([see below](#header-preamble)). +Abstract | A short (\~200 word) description of the target goals and the technical obstacles to those goals. +Problem | A more detailed description of the problem and its context. This section should explain what motivates the writing of the CPS document. +Use cases | A concrete set of examples written from a user's perspective, describing what and why they are trying to do. When they exist, this section should give a sense of the current alternatives and highlight why they are unsuitable. +Goals | A list of goals and non-goals a project is pursuing, ranked by importance. These goals should help understand the design space for the solution and what the underlying project is ultimately trying to achieve.

Goals may also contain requirements for the project. For example, they may include anything from a deadline to a budget (in terms of complexity or time) to security concerns.

Finally, goals may also serve as evaluation metrics to assess how good a proposed solution is. +Open Questions | A set of questions to which any proposed solution should find an answer. Questions should help guide solutions design by highlighting some foreseen vulnerabilities or design flaws. Solutions in the form of CIP should thereby include these questions as part of their _'Rationale'_ section and provide an argued answer to each. + +##### Header preamble + +Each CIP must begin with a YAML key:value style header preamble (also known as 'front matter data'), preceded and followed by three hyphens (`---`). + +Field | Description +--- | --- +`CPS` | CPS number (without leading 0), or "\?" before being assigned +`Title` | A succinct and descriptive title +`Status` | Open \| Solved \| Inactive (..._reason_...) +`Category` | One registered or well-known category covering one area of the ecosystem. +`Authors` | A list of authors' real names and email addresses (e.g. John Doe ) +`Proposed Solutions` | A list of CIPs addressing the problem, if any +`Discussions` | A list of links where major technical discussions regarding this CPS happened. Links should include any discussion before submission, a link to the pull request that created the CPS, and any pull request that modifies it. +`Created` | Date created on, in ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD) format + +For example: + +```yaml +--- +CPS: 1 +Title: The Blockchain Trilemma +Status: Open +Category: Consensus +Authors: + - Alice + - Bob +Proposed Solutions: [] +Discussions: + - https://forum.cardano.org/t/solving-the-blockchain-trilemma/107720 + - https://github.com/cardano-foundation/cips/pulls/9999 +Created: 2009-02-14 +--- +``` + +> **Note** A reference template is available in [.github/CPS-TEMPLATE.md][CPS-TEMPLATE.md] + +##### Repository Organization + +A CPS must be stored in a specific folder named after its number and in a file called `README.md`. Before a number is assigned, use `????` as a placeholder name (thus naming new folders as `CPS-????`). After a number has been assigned, rename the folder. + +Additional supporting files (such as diagrams, binary specifications, dialect grammars, JSON schemas etc.) may be added to the CPS's folder under freely chosen names. + +For example: + +``` +CPS-0001 +├── README.md +└── requirements.toml +``` + +#### Statuses + +From its creation onwards, a problem statement evolves around the following statuses. + +Status | Description +--- | --- +Open | Any problem statement that is fully formulated but for which there still exists no solution that meets its goals. Problems that are only partially solved shall remain _'Open'_ and list proposed solutions so far in their header's preamble. +Solved | Problems for which a complete solution has been found[^1] and implemented. When solved via one or multiple CIPs, the solved status should indicate it as such: `Solved: by [,,...]`. +Inactive | The statement is deemed obsolete or withdrawn for another reason. A short reason must be given between parentheses. For example: `Inactive (..._reason_...). + +> **Note** There is no "draft" status: a proposal which has not been merged (and hence exists in a PR) is a draft CPS. Draft CPSs should include the status they aim for on acceptance, typically but not always; this will be _'Open'_. + +#### Categories + +As defined in [CIP-0001][]. + +### The CPS Process + +#### 1. Early stages (same as CIP-0001) + +##### 1.a. Authors open pull requests with their problem statement [(as defined in CIP-0001)](https://cips.cardano.org/cips/cip1#authors-a-open-pull-requests) + +##### 1.b. Authors seek feedback [(as defined in CIP-0001)](https://cips.cardano.org/cips/cip1#authors-seek-feedback) + +#### 2. Editors' role (same as CIP-0001) + +##### 2.a. Triage in bi-weekly meetings [(as defined in CIP-0001)](https://cips.cardano.org/cips/cip1##triage-in-bi--weekly-meetings) + +##### 2.b. Reviews [(as defined in CIP-0001)](https://cips.cardano.org/cips/cip1#reviews) + +#### 3. Merging CPSs in the repository + +A statement must be well-formulated (i.e. unambiguous) and demonstrate an existing problem (for which use cases exist with no suitable alternatives). When related to a current project, the problem statement must also have been acknowledged by its respective project maintainers. In some cases, problem statements may be written after the facts and be merged directly as _'Solved'_ should they document in more depth what motivated an existing solution. + +Problem statements deemed unclear, for which alternatives exist with no significant drawbacks or establish unrealistic goals, shall be rejected (i.e. pull request closed without merge) with justifications or withdrawn by their authors. + +Similarly, problems that appear abandoned by their authors shall also be rejected until resurrected by their authors or another community member. + +##### 4. Actors of the ecosystem design and work on possible solutions + +Once merged, authors, project maintainers, or any other ecosystem actors may propose solutions addressing the problem in the form of CIP. They add their CIP to the _'Proposed Solutions'_ field in the CPS' _'Preamble'_ once a solution has been fully implemented and reaches the goals fixed in the original statement. + +Of course, a solution may only partially address a problem. In this case, one can alter the problem statement to incorporate the partial solutions and reflect the remaining issue(s) to solve. + +### Editors + +As defined in [CIP-0001][]. + +## Rationale: how does this CIP achieve its goals? + +### Goals + +Goals make it easier to assess whether a solution solves a problem. Goals also give a direction for projects to follow and can help navigate the design space. The section is purposely flexible -- which we may want to make more rigid in the future if it is proven hard for authors to articulate their intents. Ideally, goals capture high-level requirements. + +### Use Cases + +Use cases are essential to understanding a problem and showing that a problem addresses a need. Without use cases, there is, in fact, no problem, and merely disliking a design doesn't make it problematic. A use case is also generally user-driven, which encourages the ecosystem to open a dialogue with users to build a system that is useful to others and not only well-designed for the mere satisfaction of engineers. + +### Open questions + +This section is meant to _save time_, especially for problem statement authors who will likely be the ones who end up reviewing proposed solutions. Open questions allow authors to state upfront elements they have already thought of and that any solution should consider in its design. Moreso, it is an opportunity to mention, for example, security considerations or common pitfalls that solutions should avoid. + +## Path to Active + +### Acceptance Criteria + +- [x] Review this proposal with existing actors of the ecosystem +- [x] Formulate at least one problem statement following this process + - [CPS-0001: Metadata Discoverability & Trust](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/371) + - [CPS-0002: Pointer Addresses](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/374) + +### Implementation Plan + +- [ ] Schedule a retrospective in 2-3 months to assess the effectiveness of the process + +## Copyright + +This CIP is licensed under [CC-BY-4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode). + +[^1]: A problem may be only _partially solved_, in which case it remains in status _'Open'_. Authors are encouraged to amend the document to explain what part of the problem remains to be solved. Consequently, CPS that are _'Solved'_ are considered fully addressed. + +[Apache-2.0]: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 +[CC-BY-4.0]: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode +[CIP-0001]: https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/CIP-0001 +[CPS-TEMPLATE.md]: https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/.github/CPS-TEMPLATE.md +[CODE_OWNERS]: https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/about-code-owners +[CPS]: https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/CIP-9999 +[Discussions:editors]: https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/discussions/new?category=editors +[Markdown]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markdown +[PullRequest]: https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pulls +[RFC 822]: https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc822.txt +[Repository]: https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pulls +[CoC]: https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md +[Discord]: https://discord.gg/Jy9YM69Ezf diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index 0fc732c79..3676fb8e4 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -1,20 +1,28 @@ -# Cardano Improvement Proposals (CIPs) +## Cardano Improvement Proposals (CIPs) -Cardano Improvement Proposals (CIPs) describe standards, processes; or provide general guidelines or information to the Cardano Community. It is a formal, technical communication process that exists off-chain. CIPs do **not** represent a commitment of any form towards existing projects. Rather, they are a collection of sensible and sound solutions to common problems within the Cardano ecosystem. CIPs evolves across different statuses, driven by one or more authors: +A [Cardano Improvement Proposal (CIP)](./CIP-0001) is a formalised design document for the Cardano community and the name of the process by which such documents are produced and listed. A CIP provides information or describes a change to the Cardano ecosystem, processes, or environment concisely and in sufficient technical detail. In this CIP, we explain what a CIP is; how the CIP process functions; the role of the CIP Editors; and how users should go about proposing, discussing and structuring a CIP. -Status | Description ---- | --- -Draft | An implicit status given to newly proposed CIPs that haven't yet been validated or reviewed. Historically, some CIPs have been merged as 'Draft'. -Proposed | Any proposal which is not yet active but that has been reviewed, accepted and is now working towards acceptance. A 'Proposed' CIP must have a clear path to 'Active' defined and approved which defines the criteria it must meet in order to become 'Active'. -Active | The proposal has completed all steps needed for its activation. Said differently, it means observable metrics showing its adoption in the ecosystem. -Obsolete | A retired CIP or one made obsolete by a newer CIP. -Rejected | A proposal rejected for various reasons, but kept nonetheless for the record. It may also indicate ideas that were considered but deemed invalid, as a way to inform future authors. +The Cardano Foundation intends CIPs to be the primary mechanisms for proposing new features, collecting community input on an issue, and documenting design decisions that have gone into Cardano. Plus, because CIPs are text files in a versioned repository, their revision history is the historical record of significant changes affecting Cardano. -It is therefore quite common for proposals and implementations to be worked on concomitantly. Even more so that a working implementation (when relevant) is a mandatory condition for reaching an `Active` status. +> **Note** For new CIP, a reference template is available in [.github/CIP-TEMPLATE.md](.github/CIP-TEMPLATE.md) -The entire process is described in greater detail in [CIP-0001 - "CIP Process"](./CIP-0001). +## Cardano Problem Statements (CPS) -### Reviewed Proposals +A [Cardano Problem Statement (CPS)](./CIP-9999) is a formalised document for the Cardano ecosystem and the name of the process by which such documents are produced and listed. CPSs are meant to complement CIPs and live side-by-side in the CIP repository as first-class citizens. + +> **Note** For new CPS, a reference template is available in [.github/CPS-TEMPLATE.md](.github/CPS-TEMPLATE.md) + +## Communication Channels + +Extend or discuss ‘ideas’ in the [Developer Forums](https://forum.cardano.org/c/developers/cips/122), Cardano’s Official [Developer Telegram Group](https://t.me/CardanoDevelopersOfficial) or in `#developers` in Cardano Ambassadors Slack. + +CIP editors will review discussions and progress in bi-weekly meetings held [on Discord](https://discord.gg/Jy9YM69Ezf), then transcribe and summarise them [in the BikweeklyMeetings folder](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/BiweeklyMeetings). + +CIP Editors meetings are public, recorded, and [published on Youtube](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL831pmH4tfw1YkMK4FhBzoHyuSaadjdxn): do join and participate in discussions/PRs of significance to you. + +> **Note** To facilitate browsing and information sharing for non-Github users, an auto-generated site is also provided at [cips.cardano.org](https://cips.cardano.org/). + +## Reviewed Proposals | # | Title | Status | | --- | --- | --- | @@ -75,9 +83,9 @@ The entire process is described in greater detail in [CIP-0001 - "CIP Process"]( > 💡 For more details about Statuses, refer to [CIP-0001](./CIP-0001). -### Proposals Under Review +## Proposals Under Review -Below are listed tentative CIPs still under discussion with the community. They are listed below for easing navigation and also tentatively allocating numbers to avoid clashes later on. +Below are listed tentative CIPs still under discussion with the community. They are listed below for easing navigation and tentatively allocating numbers to avoid later clashes. | **#** | **Title** | | --- | --- | @@ -112,26 +120,16 @@ Below are listed tentative CIPs still under discussion with the community. They

Last updated on 2022-11-08

-### Stalled / Waiting For Authors +## Stalled / Waiting For Authors -The following list contains proposals that have been under review and for which actions are now awaiting updates of their original authors. Proposals that have been stalled for several months without any updates from their authors will be eventually closed. Authors are invited to re-open pull requests or open new ones should they want to bring back the discussion to life. +The following list contains proposals that have been under review and for which actions are now awaiting updates from their original authors. Proposals stalled for several months without any updates from their authors and will eventually be closed. However, authors are invited to re-open pull requests or open new ones should they want to bring the discussion back to life. - [collateral rewards](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/cips/pull/217) - [Deep-Link to Desktop Wallet App](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/234)

Last updated on 2022-11-08

-### Communication Channels - -Extend or discuss ‘ideas’ in the [Developer Forums](https://forum.cardano.org/c/developers/cips/122), Cardano’s Official [Developer Telegram Group](https://t.me/CardanoDevelopersOfficial) or in `#developers` in Cardano Ambassadors Slack. - -Discussions and progress will be reviewed by CIP editors in bi-weekly meetings held [on Discord](https://discord.gg/Jy9YM69Ezf), then transcribed and summarized [in the BikweeklyMeetings folder](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/BiweeklyMeetings). - -CIP Editors meetings are public, recorded and [published on Youtube](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL831pmH4tfw1YkMK4FhBzoHyuSaadjdxn): do join and participate for discussions/PRs of significance to you. - -> To facilitate browsing and information sharing for non-Github users, an auto-generated site is also provided at [cips.cardano.org](https://cips.cardano.org/). - -### Current Editors +## Editors | Frederic Johnson
[@crptmppt][] | Matthias Benkort
[@KtorZ][] | Sebastien Guillemot
[@SebastienGllmt][] | Robert Phair
[@rphair][] | | --- | --- | --- | --- | @@ -140,3 +138,4 @@ CIP Editors meetings are public, recorded and [published on Youtube](https://www [@KtorZ]: https://github.com/KtorZ [@SebastienGllmt]: https://github.com/SebastienGllmt [@rphair]: https://github.com/rphair +