Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

CIP-0108? | Governance Metadata - Governance Actions #632

Merged
merged 19 commits into from
Apr 19, 2024

Conversation

Ryun1
Copy link
Collaborator

@Ryun1 Ryun1 commented Dec 4, 2023

The conway ledger era ushers in on-chain governance for Cardano via CIP-1694 | A First Step Towards On-Chain Decentralized Governance, with the addition of many new on-chain governance artifacts.
Some of these artifacts support the linking off-chain metadata, as a way to provide context.

The CIP-100 | Governance Metadata standard provides a base framework for how all off-chain governance metadata should be formed and handled.
But this is intentionally limited in scope, so we expand it here defining fields for governance action metadata.

TODO

  • Run three workshops via Intersect Governance Metadata Working Group
  • Flesh out rationale section

📜 Rendered on fork

@Ryun1 Ryun1 added the Category: Metadata Proposals belonging to the 'Metadata' category. label Dec 4, 2023
@Ryun1
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Ryun1 commented Dec 10, 2023

For those interested;

I have put this proposal on the Triage agenda for CIP Editors Call # 78 (December 12th 4pm UTC), held in The CIP Editors Meetings Discord, see agenda and discord event.

@rphair rphair changed the title CIP-???? | Governance Metadata - Governance Actions CIP-0108? | Governance Metadata - Governance Actions Dec 13, 2023
Copy link
Collaborator

@rphair rphair left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Assigning CIP number based on unanimously positive response at yesterday's CIP meeting.

CIP-governance-metadata-actions/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rphair added a commit to rphair/CIPs that referenced this pull request Dec 13, 2023
rphair added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 14, 2023
* candidacies and merges from CIP meeting 78

* also promoted #632
@Ryun1
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Ryun1 commented Jan 22, 2024

This proposal is looking quite good at the moment.
There is only some minor tidy up left as well as writing some examples.
I will finish do the final tidy once #748 is settled.

@Ryun1 Ryun1 force-pushed the governance-metadata-actions branch from 3b243f6 to 2dc2c01 Compare January 31, 2024 14:45
Ryun1 pushed a commit to Ryun1/CIPs that referenced this pull request Mar 6, 2024
CIP-0108/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
CIP-0108/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
"title": "Name"
},
"witness": {
"$ref": "#/definitions/witness"
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You do not define witness in this document? I believe that instead this needs to be a link to CIP-100 witness definition? By the same token, the entire author/authors blocks could probably be shunted off to the CIP-100 definition unless there is something being customized here in CIP-108?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

good catch
I wasnt sure if I should add the CIP-100 related definitions to the common schema file or not

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Generally speaking they are fine to include as long as you reference them using a ref link that points to the canonical source. This just tells the schema checker to look at that link for that piece of data

@Ryun1
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Ryun1 commented Apr 2, 2024

I have significantly refactored the provided test vector's file and examples.

This should make recreating examples much easier.

@rphair rphair added the State: Last Check Review favourable with disputes resolved; staged for merging. label Apr 16, 2024
Copy link
Collaborator

@rphair rphair left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I just went over fc2fe1d which to me look like "finishing touches" so this seems as ready as I can declare it to be (would happily merge in the meeting in 1 hour's time if no dispute).

Copy link
Collaborator

@Crypto2099 Crypto2099 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks like this is a state where it is ready to be published. Revisions (if needed) can be amended to this document.

@Ryun1 Ryun1 merged commit 65e163d into cardano-foundation:master Apr 19, 2024
@rphair rphair removed the State: Last Check Review favourable with disputes resolved; staged for merging. label Sep 3, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Category: Metadata Proposals belonging to the 'Metadata' category.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants