CIP-???? | Proposal creation metadata #511
Conversation
emiflake
force-pushed
the
metadata-0839-proposals
branch
from
95815bc
to
1c291ba
Compare
rphair
added
CIP-0010: new registry entry
rphair
changed the title
There was a problem hiding this comment.
thanks @emiflake - this looks useful to a broad community, overlapping with the currently very popular #496, so I'll also request review from @KtorZ and cc @gufmar who might review this while we are getting lots of input from the community about polling & voting implementation.
Would you first please remove the assigned CIP number? Editors ask that number assignment is left to the editors (https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/CIP-0001#1a-authors-open-a-pull-request) which I believe is even more important in this case because of the CIPs in which the CIP number doesn't match the indicated metadata tag: so to imply a one-to-one relationship would be misleading.
Therefore please rename the folder to something unnumbered like CIP-????, CIP-XXXX, or CIP-proposal-creation-metadata and re-link your Rendered version from the OP to the new path of your README.md file.
CIP-0839/README.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| ## Specification | ||
|
|
||
| A new metadata tag of **839** is proposed, which is added to any transaction that "creates" a proposal (the exact specifics of creation to be discussed shortly). This tag has three required fields: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
CIP editors, readers and implementors will want to see a proper schema for this, and since on-chain data would be in CBOR the current standard for schema representation is CDDL. Can you provide a schema like we currently have for the pending CIP-0094 (#496)? https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/050a9ee63ffdaceb83179f812cc85caf345aeb43/CIP-%3F%3F%3F%3F/README.md#question-structure
My reading of the document is that the metadata structure you propose is always stored on-chain even if implementations might be handled on-chain; please correct me if I'm wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yep, I will create a schema for this. Thanks for the comment. Indeed, it is always to be applied on-chain as a metadata tag.
CIP-0839/README.md
Outdated
| Additionally, since this is a metadata proposal with very little burden of implementation, it should not clash with any existing CIPs nor any in the future. | ||
|
|
||
| [Agora]: https://github.com/Liqwid-Labs/agora/ | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| ## Path to Active |
Please provide & fill out a Path to Active section: https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/CIP-0001#path-to-active
Also if Agora is a separate entity than Liqwid please elaborate on their respective responsibilities here: and if Liqwid is actually the implementing agency (or piloting the implementation) then please indicate so in the preamble at the top. 🤓
* Apply suggestions, don't tag it as CIP-0839
emiflake
force-pushed
the
metadata-0839-proposals
branch
from
1c291ba
to
e80e431
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@emiflake the other editor feedback from the CIP meeting ended just now:
Can you explain why this is a CIP and not just an Agora specification? Agora itself may be usable by a wider community, but are you expecting that the Cardano community as a whole will be doing implementations of this separately from Agora? If so then this should be reflected in the Path to Active that you are working on & maybe elsewhere earlier in the document.
On the other hand: if this is just documenting an internal standard without a Plan to Active to extend it to a broader community, a CIP document shouldn't be necessary & you might simply want a metadata label request as in these other PRs: https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pulls?q=is%3Apr+label%3A%22CIP-0010%3A+new+registry+entry%22+
The purpose of this CIP is that other implementations of on-chain governance would also follow this metadata standard, not just those using Agora, seeing as it is general enough. However, it is true that without a way to tally the votes, the use-case for this is quite limited. I'm happy reducing this to just reserving the metadata tag, though. Perhaps at a later date we can revise this. |
|
I'll close this PR in favour of #515. Keeping it separate for bookkeeping reasons. |
This CIP proposes a simple metadata specification that is already presently used on-chain in Agora governance. It's presence here is for two reasons: documenting for future implementations, and transparency for users.
Rendered version