diff --git a/BiweeklyMeetings/2021-09-21.md b/BiweeklyMeetings/2021-09-21.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..b8d598de7 --- /dev/null +++ b/BiweeklyMeetings/2021-09-21.md @@ -0,0 +1,175 @@ + **Table of Contents:** + +- [Summary](#summary) +- [Editors Meeting Flow](#editors-meeting-flow) +- [September 21 2021 notes](#september-21-2021-notes) + * [Triage](#triage) + * [Last Check](#last-check) + * [Review](#review) + * [Discussions](#discussions) + * [Close](#close) +- [Extra](#extra) + * [Current CIPs in the CIP repository and their status](#current-cips-in-the-cip-repository-and-their-status) + * [CIP creation process as a Sequence Diagram](#cip-creation-process-as-a-sequence-diagram) + * [Understanding CIPs further](#understanding-cips-further) + +## Summary + +Rough writeup of 9/21/21 Editors meeting notes taken during that day's CIP meeting, to increase transparency and dialogue with the community regarding proposed changes, implementations and considerations. +_Notes might contain errors or miss pieces - call out issues as needed_ + +Editors meetings are [public](https://www.crowdcast.io/cips-biweekly), [recorded](https://www.crowdcast.io/cips-biweekly) and [summarized](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/BiweeklyMeetings): do join and participate for discussions/PRs of significances to you. + + +## Editors Meeting Flow + +- [x] **Triage/Review**: Some CIPs might fall out of grace or not get updated, a CIP that hasn’t seen activity for 3 months should be checked on, and appropriate action taken. Ex: did any of the recent changes obsolete current CIPs? Consider ‘Active’ -> ‘Obsolete’ transitions.. +- [x] **Last Check**: Review of the PRIOR meetings Decisions - if no objection, apply change (effectively a two week lag from decision to action, as a grace period) +- [x] **New CIPs Review**: CIPs up for review should be looked over collectively, with discussion where needed. (on top of the asynchronous reviews) +PR -> ‘Draft’: Needs format + approval. +‘Draft’ -> ‘Proposed’: Needs a PLAN towards Active + implementation. +‘Proposed’ -> ‘Active’: Objective criteria as laid out observed, and consensus agreeing. +- [x] **Current Discussions**: What the current CIPs discussions are on social media / forums / Discord. +- [x] **Close**: Recap of actions taken and decisions. List the CIPs that are due for review. Distribution of the minutes via mailing list. + +## September 21 2021 notes + +**Attending Editors**: ~Matthias Benkort~, Duncan Coutts, Sebastien Guillemot, Frederic Johnson. Community Editor Robert Phair. + + +### Triage + +**Frederic** - No major items on agenda besides continuing PR88's discussion from last meeting if stable enough. Any items we should look in? +**Duncan** - One minor item just filled at the beginning of this meeting ([PR131](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/131)), could be added to triage... +**Robert** - A discussion that probably should be discussed is that we have had another justification for possibly altering the Cardano URI scheme (CIP 13), and change to a more general URI framework with separate CIPs for separate URI scopes doing particular things. Vicente suggested this back in April and I and others thought it was a good idea then, but had so much with the stakepool and payment links at this time that it was suggested to go with this. As now people are making suggestions for different URI frameworks, I think it might be a good idea to reconsider that suggestion (to break up the URI scheme and pass on one kind of framework document, with this specific documents for the applications) +**D** - If there is to be an update to CIP 13, then we should make sure we manage this the right way.. +**R** - I haven't conferred with Vicente since, but might have time next month to draft a proposal. (to change CIP 13 and cleans it up and or maybe post a new CIP to the framework itself - whatever makes more sense). +**F** - Maybe add this to Discussion as specific PRs.. Any other PRs to discuss? By the way added labels as requested previously by Matthias, hoping that this is helpful, see if changes are needed (Currently Types and stage only). Doesn't seem we have discussion items that should be brought up to 'Triage' or 'Last Check'. [PR131](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/131) is adding two metadata labels, 88 and 87, for the Milkomeda chain. Are we fine moving this along? +**Sebastien** - Can approve this. +=> Merged [PR131](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/131) + +### Last Check + +### Review + +### Discussions + +#### DApp connector +[PR88](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/88) - “DApp connector” +**F** - The conversation is currently at 120+ comments, who can summarize the conversation? +**S** - I think Rob wrote a summary in the PR conversation... There are so many opinions on this, it is hard to keep track of the parallel discussions, and also hard to keep track of the different opinions on this. I think somebody will have to write a summary of everything, there's just too much going on at this point. We do need to merge this at some point sooner than later, so we can modify these specs for Alonzo functionality. If you try to add Alonzo-specific to this PR, it would never end. This is kinda the problem I think. +**F** - Who should do this? +**S** - It's hard, nobody has the time. +**F** - Everyone seem to agree that this is one of the critical/structural points that can really fulcrum the ecosystem integrations. +**S** - Yes. I can say I'll do it but if I do it, but it would be next week at the earliest. +**D** - If it's important maybe someone on the IOHK wallet team could be tasked with this. +**S** - We need more than just reading and putting comments at this point, more like a project manager to review and setup the clear next steps for this CIP to be locked and merged. If the wallet team can spare a PM.. +**D** - If it's important and needs to be done, then it should get done, you shouldn't have to take on the burden all to yourself. +**S** - I'll bring it up to Alex (have a meeting tomorrow). +**F** - It sounds like I could be involved in there as well, so feel free to involve me. +**S** - If you feel you have the time to get involved into this, we could have a developer get into this but it's not necessary as it's mostly summarizing. +**F** - I could get involved but it would be for next meeting, not next week, would that be too late? +**S** - We'll find someone who can do it right away, there is just so much going on for everybody. +**D** - This is an enormous thing. +**S** - Non-trivial effort for sure. +**D** - On the other hand, it looks like this is so obviously in the interest of the wallet team to implement.. +**S** - Will bring it up, and depends how it goes, will try to get it done by next week to have a clear path for this CIP. +=> Sebastien to speak with IO to get summary/consensus + +#### Statuses +**F** - looking at meeting 29 notes, the last discussion was about CIP statuses and how we progress CIPs through their various statuses. Currently merging a new CIP in the repo, it functionally goes in as 'Draft' but the proposal from Matthias was that the merging could constitute some kind of endorsement of the CIP and it should be merged as 'Active' directly. And so proposed we change the structure a bit. The counter-argument to that is that if we proceed and do that it makes it harder for users to Discuss CIPs themselves, ex: '[the CIP Metadata standard](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0025/CIP-0025.md)' was not a CIP until it was technically merged.. Duncan you last mentioned that you preferred holding back unless active concern about the general process, Sebastien no strong opinion. Functionally waiting on a PR from Matthias if we want to change CIP 1 process. + +#### Labels +**F** - We have added labels in the PR panes, you can now distinguish between the updates themselves and the new tentative CIPs, and the associated types(Standards, Informational, Process) as well as 'likely deprecated' (comment: liking the new CIP naming convention that is surfacing in the PRs). There is also the possibility of adding milestones for things, maybe where we might extend and add the statuses of CIPs themselves. +**D** - That wouldn't work as well, The milestone feature in Github only covers the code. + +#### pre-merge CIP conversation +**F** - As soon as we merge a new CIP we typically lose the conversation that happened on it outside of the PR itself. For example, [CIP 25](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0025/CIP-0025.md) does not appear to have a direct link to the extended PR conversations. What I propose is that the History header element be updated directly with the PR conversation direct link. so [PR85](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/85) (where much conversation took place) can be directly referenced in the CIP itself, so that readers can regress to the conversation easily. +**D** - I agree with this, it's sensible to be able to refer to the direct PR or conversation (or see how users got to their ideas while drafting) +**S** - If you want to share the link to the PR (conversation), it's like the PR itself. That's also fine (to keep the conversation). + +#### Update to CIP 13 +**R** - I agreed I will work on this in the first time of next month. It should be done one or two ways ( I think logically only two ways) either change [CIP 13](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0013/CIP-0013.md) and dumb it down to a framework, and then add two separate CIPs for stakepools and payment links, creating space as well for the URL scope and the metadata and all the other stuff that has been requested. I however think it would make more sense to deprecate CIP 13 after creating a new CIP for the framework - which Vicente has offered to do, I could do this with him or instead, anyway preferred. And then both the URI payment scheme (that Sebastien and Vicente originally wrote) and the stakepool link scheme need to come along as new CIPs, and should be pretty much rubber-stamped (as copies of CIP 13 content). So basically, create a supplanting 'framework' CIP (deprecating 13), and write two new CIPs (URIs for payment links, URIs for stakepools) which would enable future CIPs for metadata or other extensions down the line. +**D** - Can you elaborate as to why we would benefit or the downside? +**R** - RIght now you can't suggest any application of a URI in Cardano without modifying CIP 13. So we have a bottleneck. +**D** - That would still be true if we were to just split it now.. You would just be extending CIP 13 vs. Adding new CIPs. +**R** - It sounds like we might be arguing for the same thing. Very simple framework CIP.. +**D** - I mean what do you see as the advantages of doing it the way you're proposing. Trying to get some clarity of what the advantage it. +**R** - I think there will be dozens of protocol extensions.. +**D** - Supposed we add 'extensions' directly in CIP 13 directly? (as opposed to have them be independent CIPs..) +**R** - (my proposition) bypasses the bureaucracy of process (for that one CIP) every time that someone changes anything. It would allow for a very general framework CIP to be mostly untouched, acting as standard that everybody can recognize, while new changes would be submitted as new CIPs (rather than modify the original CIP). We'd end up with dozens of CIPs applying to it, and dozen of authors. Everyone writing a little bit for that protocol, (see [PR130](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/130)). There then are questions about accountability and such. I think it makes more sense to have one untouched framework document that stays there and collects some dust while the new protocol changes would come as new CIPs. +**D** - It makes sense for Authorship, but it's not clear it's worth it for the number of PRs that would have to be reviewed. Unless we're discussing conflict resolution. +**R** - Authorship and the accountability that goes along with it. +**D** - OK. +**R** - If everyone is in agreement, thanks for flagging. I am looking at [PR130](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/130), and there's a thread in the Forums back in April, if there is any suggestion for how, else I will work on this in October and turn to the original PR authors of the Payments URI CIP to see how they want to go. +**D** - Seem like a worthwhile pursuit. + + +#### Deprecating PRs +**S** - The CKD CIP probably won't happen, wouldn't mind closing the PR. +**F** - Crypto 2099 and Tweag.io PRs should probably be closed. Also [PR104](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/104). Close or Deprecate. +**D** - Deprecated is fine as tag. Maybe closing. The ledger team is thinking about changing the ledger specs for the next HF, and changing how some of those things work - and so to bring back this at some point would have to take into account the new ledger spec etc.. I feel this is pretty much deprecated at this point. + + + +### Close + +Minor merges +Discussions around [PR88](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/88) - “DApp connector”: Summary desired for next meeting (IO/CF) +Discussions around URI scheme / CIP-0013 and approaches from here (Robert to look more into October) + + + +--- +## Extra + +### Current CIPs in the CIP repository and their status + +| # | Title | Status | +| ----------------- | :-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | :-------------------- | +| 1 | [CIP process](../CIP-0001/CIP-0001.md) | Active | +| 2 | [Coin Selection Algorithms for Cardano](../CIP-0002/CIP-0002.md) | Draft | +| 3 | [Wallet key generation](../CIP-0003/CIP-0003.md) | Draft | +| 4 | [Wallet Checksums](../CIP-0004/CIP-0004.md) | Draft | +| 5 | [Common Bech32 Prefixes](../CIP-0005/CIP-0005.md) | Draft | +| 6 | [Stake Pool Extended Metadata](../CIP-0006/CIP-0006.md) | Draft | +| 7 | [Curve Pledge Benefit](../CIP-0007/CIP-0007.md) | Draft | +| 8 | [Message Signing](../CIP-0008/CIP-0008.md) | Draft | +| 9 | [Protocol Parameters](../CIP-0009/CIP-0009.md) | Draft | +| 10 | [Transaction Metadata Label Registry](../CIP-0010/CIP-0010.md) | Draft | +| 11 | [Staking key chain for HD wallets](../CIP-0011/CIP-0011.md) | Draft | +| 12 | [On-chain stake pool operator to delegates communication](../CIP-0012/CIP-0012.md) | Draft | +| 13 | [Cardano URI Scheme](../CIP-0013/CIP-0013.md) | Draft | +| 14 | [User-Facing Asset Fingerprint](../CIP-0014/CIP-0014.md) | Draft | +| 15 | [Catalyst Registration Transaction Metadata Format](../CIP-0015/CIP-0015.md) | Draft | +| 16 | [Cryptographic Key Serialisation Formats](../CIP-0016/CIP-0016.md) | Draft | +| 17 | [Cardano Delegation Portfolio](../CIP-0017/CIP-0017.md) | Draft | +| 18 | [Multi-Stake-Keys Wallets](../CIP-0018/CIP-0018.md) | Draft | +| 19 | [Cardano Addresses](../CIP-0019/CIP-0019.md) | Active | +| 20 | [Transaction message/comment metadata](../CIP-0020/CIP-0020.md) | Active | +| 21 | [Transaction requirements for interoperability with hardware wallets](../CIP-0021/CIP-0021.md) | Draft | +| 22 | [Pool operator verification](../CIP-0022/CIP-0022.md) | Active | +| 23 | [Fair Min Fees](../CIP-0023/CIP-0023.md) | Draft | +| 24 | [Non-Centralizing Rankings](../CIP-0024/CIP-0024.md) | Draft | +| 25 | [NFT Metadata Standard](../CIP-0025/CIP-0025.md) | Draft | +| 1852 | [HD (Hierarchy for Deterministic) Wallets for Cardano](../CIP-1852/CIP-1852.md) | Draft | +| 1853 | [HD (Hierarchy for Deterministic) Stake Pool Cold Keys for Cardano](../CIP-1853/CIP-1853.md) | Draft | +| 1854 | [Multi-signatures HD Wallets](../CIP-1854/CIP-1854.md) | Draft | +| 1855 | [Forging policy keys for HD Wallets](../CIP-1855/CIP-1855.md) | Draft | + +:bulb: - For more details about Statuses, refer to [CIP1](https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/CIP-0001). + + +### CIP creation process as a Sequence Diagram + +_"Alice has a Cardano idea she'd like to build more formally":_ +![Mary interacting with community and editors for a Cardano Proposal](../sequence_diagram.png?raw=true "sequence_diagram.png") + +### Understanding CIPs further + +[![Cardano Improvement Proposals](https://img.youtube.com/vi/q7U10EfqXJw/0.jpg)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7U10EfqXJw) +[![The Cardano Effect Ep.94](https://img.youtube.com/vi/dnw7k7VKVyo/0.jpg)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnw7k7VKVyo) + + + + diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index 3f5f51ae6..8328bb5f2 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ 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. The current process is described in details in [CIP1 - "CIP Process"](./CIP-0001/CIP-0001.md). -### Current CIPs (as of 2021-09-16) +### Current CIPs (as of 2021-09-29) | # | Title | Status | | ----------------- | :-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | :-------------------- |