completed

Community CIP Editor: 1 year budget

$19,200.00 Received
$19,200.00 Requested
Ideascale logo View on ideascale
Community Review Results (1 reviewers)
Impact / Alignment
Feasibility
Auditability
Solution

Robert Phair has volunteered as a CIP editor for 1 year already. Paying editors for their time will retain an experienced CIP team so Cardano can satisfy users familiar with the EIP standards process.

Problem:

Cardano's rapid growth relative to Ethereum has not yet evolved the same level of comprehensive support for our open (CIP) standards as Ethereum has maintained for its own open (EIP) standards.

Yes Votes:
₳ 521,080,211
No Votes:
₳ 14,042,293
Votes Cast:
2495

Team

This proposal was approved and funded by the Cardano Community via Project F9: The Great Migration (from Ethereum) Catalyst funding round.

[IMPACT] Please describe your proposed solution.

Background: What are CIP's, why do we need them, and how is the author involved?

Cardano Improvement Proposals (CIPs) follow the standard of other blockchains (e.g. EIPs or Ethereum Internet Proposals) to allow developers, engineers, scientists, entrepreneurs, or any user to propose standards, processes, or information documents that the rest of the community can follow: to avoid producing the same resources or methods repeatedly, so errors and miscommunications are kept to a minimum as the blockchain increases in size & complexity.

The CIP Editor group was born under the oversight of the Cardano Foundation with the publication of CIP-0001, in which the original CIP editors outlined a process for posting, editing and approving these suggested standards according to open-source procedures: with a GitHub repository which can be "forked" to create new CIP documents and modify existing ones.

Current CIP editors are those with write permission to this repository. Though all original members of this group were employees of the official Cardano sponsoring companies (IOG, Emurgo, and the Cardano Foundation), in keeping with open source tradition (and to support impartial governance) the members have looked for membership outside those companies. I was the first of these "community" editors to be added (in Q3 2021) and so far (in June 2022) the only one.

Perception of problem: How is the CIP process doing, and where is it going?

There has been a workable division of labour in this group, with community acknowledgement of an effective process with a growing body of standards material… but the workload on all members has been increasing. Two of the currently active members are highly technical architects of Cardano with multiple job roles within their own companies, and have found that CIP duties have taken an increasing amount of their professional time.

My own role on the editing team has been focused more on community outreach, advocacy, and documentation, and I have observed the same thing, as the rate of new CIPs and CIP changes increases geometrically while the number of editors remains fixed. We are all at the point where standards of both recruitment and remuneration are needed to keep to a high standard of work that the community can depend upon.

Short term solution: Payment for uncompensated editors (remuneration)

A successful Catalyst proposal from the last funding round was a first step in solving this problem:

F8: Open Standards & Interoperability > CIP Editor time Sebastien for 1 year

… which establishes a tentative precedent and budget based on the expectations and outlook of a CIP editor already working full-time in a Cardano related company.

Since my own proposal is from the point of view of an editor with no company affiliation, securing funding would ensure that anyone with skills and passion to support Cardano standards will be able contribute fully to the growing CIP process, regardless of their employment status.

From both perspectives: during the period in which they are funded, editors will be free to allocate their time exclusively to CIP editing responsibilities. This will quickly reflect in the time & difficulty that CIP authors face: a factor that can be easily measured by the community through the CIP repository on GitHub.

Long term solution: Recruitment & retention of new editors

This part of the strategy is beyond the scope of this proposal, although if a standard for remuneration is developed in the short term, it will incentivise the community to produce and validate new, committed editors from a variety of sources.

Paying these editors through Project Catalyst would also help ensure this part of the Governance process becomes more decentralised, and remains so, by avoiding the potential conflicts of interest that might result from the Cardano Foundation paying editors directly to manage its own repository.

Who benefits?

Anyone who derives value from Cardano remaining an open-source blockchain, whose standards can evolve in a decentralised manner not dependent on any company in particular. The evolution of the Internet and the emergence of blockchain have shown us that open source standards in both design and governance lead to:

  • higher & more sustainable asset values

  • more & better related business propositions

  • resilience & longevity resulting from decentralised governance

  • increased adoption relative to other blockchains (which leads to our Challenge question)

    [IMPACT] Please describe how your proposed solution will address the Challenge that you have submitted it in.

The particular goal for this Challenge is to increase the number of projects that migrate from Ethereum to Cardano. Many Cardano Improvement Proposals, especially recent ones, have shown:

> An efficient open source standards process in Cardano will facilitate businesses & developers in Ethereum dominated market sectors to develop on Cardano as well as, or instead of, Ethereum.

Challenge: can the Cardano standards process be made more efficient?

Ethereum has a significant head start on Cardano in the development of a standards process: about 4½ years, as measured by the GitHub submission dates of the first EIP before the first CIP. This extra experience has led to a well-developed standards process for Ethereum with high expectations of community governance.

Official lists of finalised proposals, Cardano vs. Ethereum:

Roughly speaking, Cardano is inviting all Ethereum's business while maintaining less than ⅒ of Ethereum's standards infrastructure. Note this is a very rough estimate because, for instance, there tend to be more deprecated proposals with time; the difference in numbers only serves to illustrate the expectations of a project migrating from Ethereum which will depend somehow on the prior work of others… as most of them will.

There are other metrics, easily linked from GitHub and counted, which support roughly the same conclusion:

  • the number of unmerged "pull requests" (requests to merge a changed or new standards document)
  • the number of unresolved "issues" (queries or problem reports)

… of Cardano vs. Ethereum. Project reviewers should feel free to request these metrics in comments, though I believe this detail is less meaningful than the subjective conclusion that Cardano's backlog of standards work is increasing.

This is an excellent opportunity for Cardano to encompass the same body of standards as already covered by Ethereum: if only those growing queues can be kept to a minimum relative to the size of the whole. Avoiding bottlenecks and delays in our open standards (CIP) process will also encourage new types of applications to be documented there whenever possible.

Challenge: would a better utilised Cardano standards process support more market sectors?

As a case to consider this, from the above list of CIPs we can see the standards supporting Cardano NFTs were developed relatively early (CIP-0025, CIP-0027). Today the number of NFT businesses basing on Cardano is impressive compared to other blockchains including Ethereum.

It's a question for the reader to decide if these CIP "standards" (voluntarily adopted) have created the NFT market, when literally it's also true the other way around: that the market has created these standards. The overall truth is that a growing open-source, less centralised industry needs both standards and applications to grow together.

Conclusion: Any improvements in the Cardano standards process will lead to better Cardano Cardano adoption.

Our CIP editing process is improvised, as it was in the early days of Ethereum, but now that Cardano has also become a mature blockchain with many commercial applications, those applications are creating a workload of standards and governance for which Cardano has had little time to evolve an infrastructure.

All users of, developers on, and investors in Cardano must therefore place a high value on our standards framework every time we measure ourselves relative to the "competition" of Ethereum. Documented standards are as much a part of Cardano's overall infrastructure as nodes, networks and transactions… ultimately these help determine cost, ease of use, developer friendliness, and the quality of working in a supportive community.

[IMPACT] What are the main risks that could prevent you from delivering the project successfully and please explain how you will mitigate each risk?

The "risk" of this project will be low because, if I were not performing my duties as a CIP editor, it would be apparent to all other editors well within a month's time. Since I understand the audit cycle of Project Catalyst is also monthly, this would leave adequate time for auditors to note my non-performance and cancel the project; and if payments were also made monthly, this would lave little or no risk to Catalyst of payment for undelivered work.

If I were to suddenly quit as a CIP editor, were dismissed from that role, or became unfit for the role, the observed effect in the worst case would be the same:

  • My absence would be first noticed by other members of the CIP Editing team, who each look for all other members at each of our bi-weekly CIP meetings unless already excused in advance.

  • A prolonged unjustified absence would be noted in the BiweeklyMeetings minutes folder (easily audited by Catalyst) and then, if I were still unreachable, would be confirmed by my failure to produce a monthly report.

  • At that point if I could not respond within a reasonable time period with a reason for the absence or omission, I would expect that the relationship with Catalyst would be considered terminated.

    [FEASIBILITY] Please provide a detailed plan, including timeline and key milestones for delivering your proposal.

The CIP process is mostly cyclical, with tasks loosely allocated between CIP Editors, each editor accepting the tasks they feel most qualified to deal with.

Timing

The CIP process goes in bi-weekly cycles according to our BiweeklyMeetings schedule. All pending tasks are added to an agenda on the Discord > CIP Editors Meetings server (invite) and each person responsible for that task leads a brief discussion. The conversation of this meeting determines the goals that are set for the next 2 weeks: in which actions taken for each CIP related pull request or issue are documented publicly on GitHub.

Tasks - regular

Since each pending new or modified CIP has a GitHub pull request, my activity schedule and that of other CIP editors is email-driven based on subscription to the Cardano Foundation's Github repo (note any GitHub user can subscribe to this). Editors, CIP authors, and sometimes community members will tag each other when a response is required or a code review is requested on the CIP document.

All editors are expected to be aware of the status of open CIPs, and not to move any proposal forward without the appropriate indication of consensus. Generally it's necessary to read CIP related email from GitHub every day to stay ahead of the work others are doing, while we each document our own work with GitHub comments.

If more discussion is required than what can take place on GitHub, we make a note on the Discord where all editors can see it, for the attention of the CIP Editors Meeting chairperson, to add an issue to the agenda for the upcoming meeting.

Tasks - special (as required)

Other tasks are spontaneously generated and generally self-imposed, most typically:

  • Creating discussions on Cardano Forum (generally the CIPs category) to bring CIP related questions & information to a larger audience.

  • Maintaining discussions on the Cardano Forum where a draft CIP is posted but has not yet been formally posted as a GitHub pull request, to support dialogue and refinement of the draft.

  • Monitoring user-to-user discussion on the Discord where particulars of CIPs are discussed, to bring back the most relevant feedback to the GitHub discussion thread.

  • Engaging with IOG or Cardano Foundation technical teams regarding highly technical or scientifically inclined proposals, to bring back the results of out-of-band consultation into the documented CIP process.

  • Engaging with IOG Marketing to arrange chat events with stake pool operators and/or the developer community, to notify these stakeholders of standards under consideration & bring their feedback into the documented CIP process.

    [FEASIBILITY] Please provide a detailed budget breakdown.

Baseline time estimates, from reports of other editors:

1. F8: Open Standards & Interoperability > CIP Editor time Sebastien for 1 year has quoted & obtained an annual budget of US$20,000 for 1 year of CIP editor's time. This is based on a current minimum requirement of 2 hours per week gradually approaching 8 hours per week over the course of the year, during which the CIP workload will continue to increase: with any apparent overpayment justified by Sebastien's prior work as a CIP Editor for 2 years without explicit payment.

2. Another editor has stated, off the record & after this week's CIP meeting (2022-06-28), that his time spent on CIP issues has already reached "several hours every week."

My own observed time requirements:

1. My actual time spent on CIP issues, as a part of my regular email & messaging routine, adds about an hour to every day (including weekends), especially upon further development of draft CIP-0050 which has been serving as a model for community consensus across a variety of media. Beyond this there are the regular CIP meetings and occasionally scheduled out-of-band meetings which take a total of around 1 hour per week (attendance + proofreading minutes, etc.), for a total of 8 hours per typical work week.

2. As an estimate of the "regular" plus "irregular" tasks, I would currently estimate that the observable GitHub related issue monitoring, commentary, tagging & merging would be 4 hours per week, with the internal (regular) meetings, external (irregular) meetings, Forum & Discord communication & digesting, platform migration, and related software & web site issues, also represent about 4 hours per week… also yielding, by a different measure, a total of 8 hours in a typical CIP Editing work week.

3. In my experience there are 2 weeks at end-of-year where all work in blockchain generally comes to a halt, with another 2 weeks of leave expected for personal affairs: yielding a total of 48 work weeks in each year.

Resulting project budget calculation:

48 weeks per year * 8 hours per week * US$50 per hour = $19200 for 1 year.

According to Catalyst guidelines (as I understand them) and my proposed monthly audit schedule, this would be payable monthly as $19200 / 12 = $1600 payable per month.

As with Sebastien's proposal last quarter, I believe I am also in the same situation where the time I have spent as a CIP editor prior to any payment (about 1 year in my case) would at least balance out any month in which there was a shortfall of the number of hours worked relative to these estimates. In fact it is likely there will be peak periods of CIP activity in the coming year in which more than 8 hours per week may be required.

[FEASIBILITY] Please provide details of the people who will work on the project.

This project will rely only upon my own work & experience (name: Robert Phair).

Relevant credentials in ongoing CIP & Cardano standards:

Relevant experience with blockchain (as of 2020):

Relevant experience prior to blockchain (pre-2020; see C.V. / Resume)

  • Computer industry consultant with thirty years of professional experience in systems integration, networking, programming / design, technical writing, and project management
  • Business advisor for cloud computing, online marketing & commerce, data security, technical training and emerging technologies

Other details:

  • GitHub: @rphair

  • Twitter crypto handle: @COSDpool

  • Cardano Forum: @COSDpool

  • Web site: cosd.com

    [FEASIBILITY] If you are funded, will you return to Catalyst in a later round for further funding? Please explain why / why not.

I believe yes that I would, because the goal of this project is sustainability of Cardano's standards process rather than any short-term objective. Any CIP editor receiving funding from Catalyst, especially one not being paid a corporate salary, should feel comfortable submitting a funding proposal at 1-year intervals: providing an opportunity for annual review by both that editor and the community as a whole.

[AUDITABILITY] Please describe what you will measure to track your project's progress, and how will you measure these?

Primary indicator: CIP biweekly meeting minutes

The list of meeting attendees is always early in the minutes and the speaker's name is next to each transcribed comment: to make it easy even for non-attendees to assess anyone's participation. It's rare for any attending editor to pass through a CIP meeting without something they want to comment about, so the presence of comments in the transcript can be taken as a minimum sign of participation.

Online metrics of direct CIP editor participation on GitHub pull requests & issues

By changing the GitHub username, these will work for any CIP editor (in fact, for any CIP process participant):

For the Pull Requests in particular, auditors should especially look among the comments for code reviews (green checks for passing reviews, white checks for commentary review… we generally don't produce the "red flags" because they might block a PR merge over a subjective issue).

Our simplest goal is also to "merge" as many pull requests as possible: so while merges make an editor look & feel good, keep in mind it's not a race to see which one of us hits the "merge" button first: we all know it's better to wait until there is quorum (if not unanimity) both on- & offline before merging a drafted CIP. If we are successful as a group, this list of unmerged CIPs will remain small:

Subjective metrics of community participation

My username (showing as rphair and/or my organisation / stake pool name COSD) should regularly show in the following channels:

Manual reporting for Catalyst: to be also released on GitHub

My understanding of the Catalyst reporting requirements is to produce a monthly report. To avoid duplication of effort by auditors and community members, I plan to include samples of the above metrics showing the issues I was most notably involved in that month:

  • comment links to GitHub discussions
  • message links to Discord discussions
  • thread / posting links to Cardano Forum
  • any special events in the community I was involved in

I will also create a publicly accessible repository in my own GitHub account where I will post each of these monthly reports (minus any confidential details).

[AUDITABILITY] What does success for this project look like?

Retention of a effective & coordinated CIP Editor team

If this proposal, and possibly similar proposals from other current or aspiring CIP editors, proceed on Catalyst, the result should be a CIP team where every aspect of open standards in Cardano is matched with someone on the team who has the time and interest to work happily in that area.

Standards & governance model visible to Ethereum community

A positively evolving CIP process— with a solid & growing CIP repository, surrounded by positive experience & expectations in the Cardano community at large— would be attractively visible in the next year to Ethereum-centred developers, companies, writers, investors, and analysts.

[AUDITABILITY] Please provide information on whether this proposal is a continuation of a previously funded project in Catalyst or an entirely new one.

ENTIRELY NEW

Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) Rating

SDG Goal 9 - Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation

SDG Subgoal 9.5 - Enhance scientific research, upgrade the technological capabilities of industrial sectors in all countries, in particular developing countries, including, by 2030, encouraging innovation and substantially increasing the number of research and development workers per 1 million people and public and private research and development spending

Key Performance Indicator (KPI) 9.5.2 - Researchers (in full-time equivalent) per million inhabitants

Universal Human Rights Index (UHRI) - No UHRI indexes selected

Community Reviews (1)

Comments

Monthly Reports

Period between 2022-09-24 and 2022-10-23 inclusive

These reports: https://github.com/rphair/cip-editing GitHub activity overview: https://github.com/rphair Cardano Forum overview: https://forum.cardano.org/u/COSDpool Discord invite to CIP Editors Meetings: https://discord.gg/kyaTyzkBqd

Quantitative contributions

CIP pull requests @rphair involved in, by last update time = 40 in this period

CIP issues @rphair involved in, by last update time = 2 in this period

Cardano Forum CIP topics @COSDpool posted in since beginning of period = 4 addressed in this period CIP team progress

Open pull requests (https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pulls) = 43

Open issues (https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/issues) = 18 Qualitative contributions

2022-09-21 CIP Editors' retrospective meeting - held recently before this reporting period - with seminal members Matthias and Sebastien, and Cardano Foundation management attending as observer, we discussed:

pending issues to make Discord meetings more efficient organising meeting agendas into CIP pull requests by theme (i.e. technology, such as NFTs or Plutus) pending changes to CIP process as documented in CIP-0001, forming the basis for further revisions by Matthias later this month: cardano-foundation/CIPs#331 making status changes to merged CIPs more readily visible to developers & the community a long term plan to recruit & retain more CIP editors, including a balance of unafilliated ("community") editors.

2022-09-27 CIP editor meeting #54 - attended

meeting agenda Google Doc no longer available (I'll make copies of agendas of meetings beginning next monthly report cycle) minutes no longer transcribed due to ongoing technical problems: cardano-foundation/CIPs#340 (review) in addition to usual discussion, resolved to summarise transcriptions & our own notes of meeting resolutions into GitHub threads themselves.

2022-10-11 CIP editor meeting #55 - attended

meeting agenda Google Doc no longer available (I'll make copies of agendas of meetings beginning next monthly report cycle). transcription not yet available from Cardano Foundation (may not be available in future either); in the meantime we are all expected to take our own notes of meetings & we are still getting used to the workflow for this.

Discord, GitHub & Forum

discussions: assisted old &amp; new proposers of CIPs for changing Cardano&#039;s CIP incentives (minimum fees, pledges and parameters, saturation levels) in submitting &amp; discussing their work. helped develop immature CIP submissions to progress PR&#039;s that have been stalled for months (e.g. CIP-0048?)</p>
Disbursed to Date
$19,200
Proposal
Community CIP Editor: 1 year budget
Status
Still in progress
Completion Target
5. After 1 year
Comments 0

Login or Register to leave a comment!

Sign in Register

Period between 2022-10-23 and 2022-11-23 inclusive

These reports: https://github.com/rphair/cip-editing GitHub activity overview: https://github.com/rphair Cardano Forum overview: https://forum.cardano.org/u/COSDpool Discord invite to CIP Editors Meetings: https://discord.gg/kyaTyzkBqd

Quantitative contributions

CIP pull requests @rphair involved in, by last update time = 43 in this period

CIP issues @rphair involved in, by last update time = 2 in this period

Cardano Forum CIP topics @COSDpool posted in since beginning of period = 3 addressed in this period CIP team progress

Open pull requests (https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pulls) = 49

Open issues (https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/issues) = 19 Qualitative contributions

Several CIPs were posted this month involving aspects of Cardano governance, with vigorous discussion on GitHub about how to maintain community consensus amid expansion of Cardano capabilities as well as decoupling authoritative power from Cardano entities; there was a lot of material this month to be read, indexed & shared in anticipation of our meetings & reviews of these proposals:

Tiered Pricing Protocol #381 A proposal for entering the Voltaire phase #380 (CIP-1694?) Implement Ouroboros Leios to increase Cardano throughput #379 Enforceable royalties #378 Extended Local Chain Sync Protocol #375 Pointer Address Removal #374 Smart tokens #382

A few of these represent work in progress by IOG for months which is now being posted as community audiable standards, which is a matter of progress & credibility for the CIP process itself. There are also some proposals which could be considered potentially detrimental to Cardano's design goals, so are being vigorously discussed by stakeholders. There was probably more GitHub activitiy in the last 3 months on the CIP GitHub than in the previous 3 months put together.

Work proceeds also on the CIP-0001 revision, pending some issues of original authorship which have created an ethical deadlock & about which I've recommended some compromises. It's expected that this discussion will resolve soon, which will bring the new CPS (Cardano Problem Statement) to the public eye… which will be suitable to redefine & keep the community working on problems that have no immediate, direct solution that can be documented as a CIP would.

Finally some issues outside the scope of the CIP process have also been presented as "governance" issues and it has fallen to me to keep discussion of these alive as well, rather than simply dismissing them. It is important that our community retain a proper notion of "governance" as it differs from "governance", while being assertive about the CIP process itself without giving any creditbility to critics who've suggested our process is overly bureaucratic because we are insisting upon some basic rules about what the CIP process is & isn't. 2022-11-08 CIP editor meeting #57 (17:00 UTC) = 21:30 my time Triage

CIP-???? | Parameterised Reference Scripts (cardano-foundation/CIPs#354)

very thin proposal: we can&#039;t understand it; no path for implementation or communication with Plutus / core team. Matthias commented after meeting: even for a draft we still would want a Path to Active for such a proposal.

CIP-???? | DApp Registration (cardano-foundation/CIPs#355)

No Rationale or Path to Active (&quot;how do you intend to implement it&quot;?) &quot;Work in Progress&quot; - wait for author to come back with update; then we can do a full review.

CIP-???? | Oracle Datum Standard (cardano-foundation/CIPs#357)

Good collaboration between independent developers working on oracle projects... first oracle CIP. Good balance of cooperation &amp; competition between different methods.

CIP-???? | Set minPoolCost to 0 (cardano-foundation/CIPs#358)

(my opinion) a not very good rephrase of a 2 year old idea. CIP is mostly rhetoric about decentralisation. Q: as M says, if we were to merge this, what Status would it be merged with? Kevin Hammond says: SPO survey says: preferred options for increasing K parameter &amp; changing minimum fee or pegging it to currency figure (dollar). Will be released 2 days from this time. Can be held up for a vote with tools like on Cardanoscan.

CIP-???? | Fair Stakepool Rewards (cardano-foundation/CIPs#360)

A more elaborate system which is getting support from community with some stages for adoption. Will need complete endorsement from IOG before it can be implemented... will have marketing &amp; tokenomic implications. Nobody will be able to make IOG do this, so no point discussing it without them.

These last 2 RSS proposals should be merged as Proposed while:

workshops between IOG &amp; SPOs &quot;vote&quot; around details indicate Path to Active saying that agency (generally IOG) is responsible for implementing them.

CIP ???? | No Datum Is Unit (cardano-foundation/CIPs#364)

Michael doesn&#039;t like it... discussion still pending. Some overlap (philosophically) with Sebastien&#039;s current proposal (Michael commented for same reason).

CIP-???? | Hash-Checked Data (cardano-foundation/CIPs#363)

Plutus needs to be extended to overcome some problems with how the ledger works in some circumstances. Commentary on GitHub currently explains technical differences: maybe for Stack Exchange to work out some details. TO GET Jared to comment on the suggestion that there were &quot;ledger holes&quot; ... since M says it&#039;s not really a limitation of Plutus but rather one of the Ledger.

CIP-???? | add Identity to Stake Pools

(missed due to 5 minutes my Discord server connection went down)

Last Check - nothing in this category. Review/Discussion

CIP-0069? | Plutus Script Type Uniformization (cardano-foundation/CIPs#321)

Ben from Mlabs says this is great for developers... including those coming from other blockchains. Matthias says it&#039;s fine with the people on the Plutus team. BUT haven&#039;t discussed implementation plan yet, or which of them would be responsible for it... i.e. that&#039;s the next step to agree upon this &amp; design, and then document it in the CIP. Requires new Plutus language version (next would be v3) Ben will engage relevant parties &amp; do this (per Frederic question, can&#039;t merge as Proposed until has complete Plan to Active... it will be thin until Ben etc. get the details)

CIP-???? | Non-Fungible Token (NFT) Proxy Voting Standard (cardano-foundation/CIPs#351)

Review taking place on GitHub; author responsive &amp; adding precision to the CIP, so well on its way. For Path to Active... there needs to be some adoption (or proposal to) some active NFT projects. According to Matthias, confirming all comments have been addressed, it can be merged now (pending last check for resolution of all conversations, except matters of opinion?) set to Active later &amp; merged as Proposed now.

CIP process itself (+ CPS) cardano-foundation/CIPs#366 - CIP1 and "minus one" (9999)

IOG really wants it to move forward [I observed they were very involved in the drafting process] We should merge it at the next meeting, especially since now the &quot;original authorship&quot; question has been answered (by keeping original CIP1 principal author in the new header).

2022-10-25 CIP editor meeting #56 (theme: Plutus changes) Triage

CIP-0057? | Plutus Smart-Contract Blueprints (cardano-foundation/CIPs#258)

coming up again from a while back... want other interesting parties (Mlabs) to join discussion. Would be good to come back to it when there are some tools consuming this format, to demonstrate usefulness. Also working on associated tooling.

Last Check

CIP-0049? | NFT metadata extension tag (cardano-foundation/CIPs#343)

will work better as an extension to CIP-0025 - to invite CIP25 author to do that (if not clear from what M said) - will add comment to clarify that&#039;s why we&#039;re leaving this open.

CIP-???? | Smart Contract Software Licenses (cardano-foundation/CIPs#185)

leaving open for author to take to final step (Matthias will know how to phrase it) TO NOTIFY AUTHOR this is scheduled for closure.

Review/Discussion

CIP-0041? | UPLC Serialization Optimizations (cardano-foundation/CIPs#314)

leaving this to the Plutus team, and plan to review in the future as soon as at least 1 person at the Plutus team has looked it over. They should also be asked to look at this if they&#039;re working on Plutus at a low level. Can&#039;t merge as Proposed unless this happens (M has asked them to review before &amp; will ask again; some progress has been made by Michael).

CIP-0069? | Plutus Script Type Uniformization (cardano-foundation/CIPs#321)

one of the authors (Zygomeb / Maximilien [in CIP but not widely known]) is present. DONE notifying users on Forum of the naming conflict, with attention of moderators. technical review on details with author... keeping for review in future meeting.

CIP-0058? | Bitwise primitives (cardano-foundation/CIPs#283) - Matthias thinks this is very complete, the second draft with a lot of work on it & looks complete, solid & well written with a clear motivation, use cases & applications.

Mlabs &amp; Plutus team would be interested... Maximilien confirms these are also included in Plutus (but weren&#039;t included in Vasil hard fork). Just need to fix typos and things like that.

(not on agenda) cardano-foundation/CIPs#250

author just walked in although this one not on agenda... merging as proposed because it&#039;s already being used in Plutus V2, and as soon as that becomes active on mainnet it can be updated to &quot;active&quot; (Inigo will submit a further PR with the stage change when it comes up).

discussion of next meeting agenda - M agrees we can have next agenda for PoS system updates.

Matthias would like to get that group on board for the next editor meeting. covering part of this agenda in this meeting: most of them are coming in to remove the min fee but some compromises to lower it progressively... with some also raising the K parameter. This problem is coming up because we can&#039;t talk with people who are controlling parameters... therefore some requests seem to be &quot;all or nothing&quot; (if they change K there&#039;s no guarantee they could change it again). I pointed out that some CIP authors (e.g. 50) wanted a &quot;catalyst vote&quot; but perhaps that could be resticted to SPOs... but then again they aren&#039;t the only stakeholders... M says we need MORE VISIBILITY above all. renaming on CIP Discord to get something easier to type &amp; share &amp; hopefully compete with dead end Twitter discussions. (now called &quot;rewards-sharing-scheme-discussions&quot;) NOTIFIED forum threads / github messages that the channel name has changed (can be found much more easily now)
Disbursed to Date
$19,200
Proposal
Community CIP Editor: 1 year budget
Status
Still in progress
Completion Target
5. After 1 year
Comments 0

Login or Register to leave a comment!

Sign in Register
close

Playlist

  • EP2: epoch_length

    Authored by: Darlington Kofa

    d. 3 se. 24
    Darlington Kofa

  • EP1: 'd' parameter

    Authored by: Darlington Kofa

    d. 4 se. 3
    Darlington Kofa

  • EP3: key_deposit

    Authored by: Darlington Kofa

    d. 3 se. 48
    Darlington Kofa

  • EP4: epoch_no

    Authored by: Darlington Kofa

    d. 2 se. 16
    Darlington Kofa

  • EP5: max_block_size

    Authored by: Darlington Kofa

    d. 3 se. 14
    Darlington Kofa

  • EP6: pool_deposit

    Authored by: Darlington Kofa

    d. 3 se. 19
    Darlington Kofa

  • EP7: max_tx_size

    Authored by: Darlington Kofa

    d. 4 se. 59
    Darlington Kofa
0:00
/
~0:00