Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
215 lines (155 loc) · 14.9 KB

2023-06-11.md

File metadata and controls

215 lines (155 loc) · 14.9 KB
Raw

Monthly reporting to Catalyst submitted 2023-06-11

Period between 2023-05-13 and 2023-06-11 inclusive

Quantitative contributions

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

  • impossible to determine: GitHub outage & fix 5 days ago (many PRs in many repos had modtimes reset to that time)

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

  • impossible to determine for same reason

Cardano Forum CIP topics @COSDpool posted in since beginning of period = 0 addressed in this period

CIP team progress

Open pull requests (https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pulls) = 63 (down from last month)

Open issues (https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/issues) = 32

Qualitative contributions

Team has had a good month for closing PRs and merging long standing CIP work: number of open PRs has again begun to decrease instead of increasing month on month.

I believe this can be further imrroved by not simply waiting for CIP authors to respond when a mixed CIP editor review is submitted. For example, when a CIP author enquiried about the status & whether his document was ready to merge, it presented a good opportunity to review all unresolved comments which causes GitHub to send a separate email about each one of them, giving the author incentive to finally close all outstanding issues. This approach has worked very well recently with this popular but stalled CIP: cardano-foundation/CIPs#499

Also prompt intervention from the CIP team has averted a crisis where the Blockfrost team believed CIP-0068 was lacking a versioning strategy in a way that made their implementation impossible to confirm standards compliance. This issue I submitted has achieved a short term solution & will be useful in avoiding similar problems in the future, as well as ultimately introducing a consideration of versioning as a required part of the CIP process itself defined in CIP-0001: cardano-foundation/CIPs#520

Also I have arranged an open invitation from the Plutus team, thanks to Michael Peyton-Jones, in which we are now free to request their attendance and input at CIP meetings whenever Plutus CIPs are up for review.

2023-06-06 CIP Editors Meeting #67 4:30PM (UTC)

Actually 3:30PM UTC if beginning as I am observing from Discord at 9PM local time in India (GMT+5:30)

AGENDA (https://hackmd.io/@cip-editors/67)

Triage

CIP-0094? | Update process duration (cardano-foundation/CIPs#516)

  • DONE via primary PR ahead of meeting after my requests on GitHub & private channel on Discord.

Review

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

  • KT has pushed through a bunch of changes so believe the "Last Check" label should be effective for this agenda & we should MERGE IT NOW.
  • KT still not happy with how explicit it is... could it be recycled as a CPS?
    • Or is there one that's already relevant to it?
    • YES - Plutus Script Usability... where it already was included in that CPU.
  • KT says he'll add something for my suggestion about metadata.
  • still lacks a proper specification... but not a problem since no implementors & only suggested to merge Proposed (hence my positive review).
  • so KT is approving & merging, with comment to this effect.

CIP-0056? | Treasury donations (cardano-foundation/CIPs#269)

  • Today we're getting all of SEBA's proposals.
  • This is also antiquated & needs a re-work if continuing, or to be dropped.
    • Not a lot of response on this one.
    • Could use more consideration in regard to Catalyst re-work of their apps in the last few months.
  • and needs CIP-0001 re-work.. especially
    • PATH TO ACTIVE which should definitely INVOLVE CATALYST, right?
  • MY GUESS is that this is a brainstorm which the last year's market uncertainty & Catalyst remodel has made obsolete.
  • FYI
    • People would be in favour of this but community has been very much against including "investment" in the means of increasing the treasury.
  • no response from IOG yet other than people saying "sounds interesting" but Seba hasn't had time to work on it... so we converted back to Draft in the meeting.
    • KT is putting an explanatory comment about it; as I would put it this proposal is in "limbo" without the author being sure he will continue with it.
  • In meeting I said that Catalyst had made a lot of improvements in last 6 months, and talks about them in Forum postings a lot, e.g. (https://forum.cardano.org/t/catalyst-weekly-79-town-hall-128-catalyst-continuous-testnet/118462)
    • BUT after meeting I went to check & there's nothing about accounting for donations.
    • In fact in my own experience of trying to a refund of an overpayment & then get it back again, I was shocked how extremely inflexible their accounting system still is.

CIP-0038? | Arbitrary Script as Native Script spending conditions (cardano-foundation/CIPs#309)

  • No activity for a few weeks, but discussion still ongoing.
    • other than recent comment about whether this CIP would make wallets indistinguishable from end user addresses
      • MY UNDERSTANDING is that it does not & this last comment was a "red herring" amidst the other technical suggestions.
  • Sebastien (also expected @ meeting): coincident with CIP-0039, so:
    • How are you pushing this forward?
    • Like CIP39 this also seems to be a reference for a certain way of doing things; can it therefore be merged as Proposed?
    • If it can't be agreed on as a method, what about CPS statement of problem & indication about how this can solve it?
    • IF WANTING TO MERGE: LIKE cip39 needs a re-work as per CIP-0001 since header, document sections, header level & all the usual things are wrong.
  • From my level I don't see why the technicahttps://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/502l suggestions are really necessary & will always be matters of opinion.
    • Regarding these questions I think our policy has always been to merge as Proposed... but WITH a description of how implementations would make it become Active.
  • WE DON'T HAVE A PLAN TO ACTIVE and it reads like a blog entry (all use cases) rather than a CIP.

    • Seba can't get a response from IOG about it... but then Ledger team would have to get a more precise spec to see if they can do it.

    • KT suggested pinging back the ledger team to see how/what they could do with it.

  • Seba will update & put in Path to Active.  (THEN I'll review for other format isuees.)

CIP-0039? | Language annotated address (cardano-foundation/CIPs#310) (SEBA)

  • no activity since OCTOBER 2022 !
  • Sebastien (looks like he's planning on coming to meeting, since active on Github now):
    • would it be fair to say this can be merged as a reference document, since so many other proposals have referred to it in last 7+ months?
    • IF NOT then it should be dropped.
    • IF SO it also needs a re-work as per CIP-0001 since header, document sections, header level & all the usual things are wrong.
  • mainly, again WE DON'T HAVE A PLAN TO ACTIVE.
  • Seba will update & put in Path to Active.  (THEN I'll review for other format isuees.)

Last-check

CIP-0084? | Ledger evolution (meta) (cardano-foundation/CIPs#456)

  • I've double checked this before every meeting (I approved on 08 Feb) & think we are simply ready to:
    • DO ONE MORE REVIEW... can someone do it on the spot?
    • HIT THE BUTTON.
  • Last discrepancy was whether Ledger category can be applied to RSS proposals.
  • FOR ME TO DO: AFTER CIP-84 is merged (pending definition of what an RSS "expert" is), with Ledger OK for RSS proposals, I will:
    • submit PR to
      • apply the Ledger category to the very old ones
      • reactivate the more recent Inactive proposals
    • notify Discord & Element that the RSS proposals are now applicable as Proposed & CIP repo has been updated.
    • I summarised (cardano-foundation/CIPs#456 (comment))

CIP-0072? | DApp Registration & Discovery (cardano-foundation/CIPs#355) @ehanoc = Bruno Martins & @matiwinnetou = Mateusz Czeladka)

  • NOT READY FOR LAST CHECK (which I added) and I propose we take it off and mark "Waiting for Author" instead...
    • TO MARK AS SUCH based on whether ehanoc comes to meeting
    • (cardano-foundation/CIPs#355 (comment))
      • "last check" applied after CIP meeting 3 weeks ago was supposing author's cooperation on upcoming code reviews, which has not happened in that time.
  • Mateusz is here but he doesn't have a lot of time to work on this.
    • KT suggestion: leave "Implementors" as empty!
    • TO COMMENT @mati - you can leave Implementors as empty if you want to merge it as written... although @mati says that zero implementors often leads to an unused standard ("chicken & egg").
  • So he's agreed to do that.... therefore can leave on Last Check.

CIP-0060 | Update to v2 (cardano-foundation/CIPs#502)

  • I passed it back in April but it missed a couple meeting cycles to get "Last Check"ed.
  • Seba passed it before meeting, so READY TO HIT THE BUTTON now.
  • Only pending change I've noted before, which is promised for V3 (updating some naming & documentation):
  • MERGED at meeting.

Issues

CIP-0068 versioning and similar cases (cardano-foundation/CIPs#520) - by ME

  • I added new section for this Agenda but think it will be helpful in future meetings.
  • Q: do we have to put a 2 in the number?
  • Q: let's introduce a section & header to CIP-0001... maybe also in header.
    • That means putting all
  • TODO put meeting notes in issue (Ryan is noting up the agenda)
  • TODO create a PR to do the needful with CIP68 & invite Marek & Ales & Andrew

2023-05-16 CIP Editors Meeting #66 8:30AM (UTC)

MY AGENDA SUGGESTIONS & COMMITMENTS - both scheduled for Review.

  • cardano-foundation/CIPs#442 (comment) (Authenticated Web3 HTTP requests)
  • CIP-???? | On-chain dApp Certification Metadata #499 - Romain asked "how to we expedite this"
    • cardano-foundation/CIPs#499 (review) (reviews not responded to yet by authors: suggested 3 days before meeting that these points be addressed & hopefully declare it to be a candidate at the meeting if all clear)

Triage

CIP-0085 | Add an alternative about unsaturated constr/case

  • JUST A DOCUMENTATION UPDATE so can be checked in ON THE SPOT.

Review

CIP-???? | Authenticated Web3 HTTP requests (@jmagan / Juan Salvador Magán Valero) cardano-foundation/CIPs#442

  • I've already passed it & believe it should be promoted to Candidate.
  • All responses to KT and matiwinnetou (Mateusz Czeladka) [CIP72 author] have been addressed... so fine even to move to Last Check if review goes well at this meeting.
  • Noted on Discord & Github to assign an official CIP number (KT generally does this).

CIP-0062? | Cardano dApp-Wallet Web Bridge Catalyst Extension (@ehanoc = Bruno Martins?) cardano-foundation/CIPs#296

  • Ryan is a co-author: he should take this one & field the reviews.
  • Progressing along with no status changes.

SPONTANEOUS - matiwinnetou showed up - cardano-foundation/CIPs#355

  • @KT NEED TO REVIEW - note on Agenda & Github.
  • ALREADY being implemented by authors.
    • chicken-egg since they'd been waiting for merge perhaps to get more adoption for this?  While it's likely the other way around.
  • marked LAST CHECK in light of merge as Proposed, with my own approving review: cardano-foundation/CIPs#355 (review)

CIP-0069? | Plutus Script Type Uniformization (@zygomeb = "Max" Maksymilian 'zygomeb' Brodowicz) cardano-foundation/CIPs#321

  • STALLED for 2.5 months... editor approve & merge already?  Or deprecate?
  • Discussion from KT and members of Plutus / mLabs would be welcome.
  • have to move this along... merge as proposed (tag KT) unless Plutus (tag Mlabs / Las) have serious reservations.
  • MY SUMMARY (which should be this in for final review next CIP meeting #67):

CIP-??? | On-chain dApp Certification Metadata

  • Romain says he addressed all the review comments & IS HERE today:
    • Gave review both of existing proposal & yesterday's updates in response to communication review.
  • mainly dialogue between him & Ryan... all favourable regarding existing draft & recent updates & clarifications.
  • Ryan also giving more of a review in near future.
  • Noted on Discord & Github to assign an official CIP number (KT generally does this).

Last-check

MY SUGGESTION: 2 related deprecations from old "metadata pointer" proposals

  • cardano-foundation/CIPs#249 (CIP itself)
  • cardano-foundation/CIPs#343 (extension tag update for CIP25)
    • TO NOTE when closing / deprecating AT MEETING probably (I WILL DO IT)
  • A lot of "work" went into these & editorial interest, but nothing from the community except Adam Dean who found it relatable to CIP88
    • but author's help would have been required to close the gap, which never happened.