Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
153 lines (110 loc) · 9.35 KB

2023-03-14.md

File metadata and controls

153 lines (110 loc) · 9.35 KB
Raw

Monthly reporting to Catalyst submitted 2023-03-14

Period between 2023-02-14 and 2023-03-14 inclusive

Quantitative contributions

CIP pull requests @rphair involved in, by last update time = 37 in this period

CIP issues @rphair involved in, by last update time = 5 in this period

Cardano Forum CIP topics @COSDpool posted in since beginning of period = 1 addressed in this period

CIP team progress

Open pull requests (https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pulls) = 54

Open issues (https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/issues) = 30

Qualitative contributions

Another month with only one CIP Meeting (due to editor unavailability from illness) has still gone well due to reviews still continuing without interruption on GitHub from third party reviewers and editors alike.

This last month has also seen the most extraordinary engagement of the community on a CIP so far: the "Voltaire" (recently dropped from the working title) proposal CIP-1694. A massive amount of community feedback, spurred by social networking and content creator channels, is being drawn together with an unprecedented number of reviews, including a huge update from the Colorado workshop 2 weeks ago. Editors continue to digest community feedback on successive rounds of update & review.

2023-03-14 CIP Editors Meeting #62 @ 9:30 am (UTC)

Last check

CIP-0084? | Ledger evolution (meta) #456 (Jared)

  • LAST CHECK: questions
  • KT brings this up in meeting.
    • He things RSS is still out of scope.
  • Not ready to merge since RSS needs to be literally disqualified for Ledger category in proposal (I posted on GitHub as such)

CIP-0030 | Upgrade to latest format & propose version / extension scheme #446 (KT)

  • Letting KT lead the say on this one... I approved it <2 months ago & think it makes sense in every way.
    • Looks like Seba is coming & reviewing now so will watch for his own tech review.
  • MY COMMENTs FOR MEETING
    • work in the dApp & wallets areas depends on this being merged quickly.
    • pending nitpicks from the peanut gallery
      • Nomenclature issues... about which nobody is ever in agreement.
      • Seems compatible with Ryan's suggestion of alternative baseline (#462 ?)
      • Some other comment about sequencing / sniffing that I don't understand: cardano-foundation/CIPs#446 (comment)

CIP-0085? | Sums-of-products in Plutus Core #455 (MPJ)

  • Michael still working on it: benchmarking & considering alternatives.
  • I already approved it because whatever he decides to do will be best in my opinion: we can just merge when he has everything worked out to his satisfaction
  • MEETING QUESTION

Triage

we're assigning numbers to all of these (except rejected one)

CIP-???? | Extendable dApp-Wallet Web Bridge #462 (Ryan Williams OF COURSE PRESENT)

  • as per Seba: feedback for version / extension scheme #446 is also applicable here.
  • Ryan here & introducing it.
  • Sebastien like is except for 1 technical issue (already documented)
    • aired in meeting... good to go with that change.
  • needs more input & BUY-IN from wallet providers, including:
    • CIP-0030 will effectively become an extension to this proposal once both of them have been adopted by devs... since one is a subset of the others' features.

CIP-???? | Don't force Built-In functions #459 (Niels Mündler)

  • Michael in favour of doing this in Plutus originally & just didn't happen because of time constraints.
  • Proposal is not complete but has been commented by Plutus / MPJ so my feeling is it will sit with them for a while.
  • TO ASSIGN a number, and
    • ask the author to complete their improvements
    • get Plutus team to cooperate about implementation.
  • Las chimed in & continuing to introduce next proposal...

CIP-???? | First-class errors in Plutus #469 (Las Safin)

  • Las gives & provokes long technical review (deeper than usual triage):
    • Some "annoying" things about the language which would be fixed by making it "pure".
    • Michael's point of view also comes from his "not having written contracts"?
    • Seems that people working around language problems when using Plutus in "real world" = contracts.
  • MY Q: is this not a breaking change on language syntax?
  • my observation: getting good academic & practical review on GitHub currently.
  • TO ASSIGN NUMBER.

CIP-???? | Beacon Tokens & Distributed Dapps #466 (Icarus / Daidalos)

  • Using tokens as a way of getting around metadata lookups
    • according to author, applicable to a huge variety of applications
    • I've observed author is posting the Beacon solution on other CIPs.
  • Seba thinks it's currently more like "a blog entry" than a CIP (just indicating author's "idea")
    • Mean of making the indexers (e.g. DEX order batchers) "work better"
    • Says it's "informal as you can get" because author's not suggesting any particular changes.
    • TO SUMMARISE that this is the feeling... suggest it to author?
      • maybe reference implementations should be restricted to these use cases?
    • and COMBINE 2 ref implementations with Cardano Swaps (why separate)?
  • KT says maybe this should be a CPS... since not very much about specific implementations?
    • would leave open to come up with CIP solutions within it.  Seba agrees.
  • MY ACTION ITEM collect some interest from community about relevance to community desire for fully distributed DEX.
    • Author (obligated to) & Anthony (offered to) help with this effort.
  • POSTED all this as detailed review (cardano-foundation/CIPs#466 (review))

CIP-????: Native Asset Policy Registration/Information Certificates #467 (Adam Dean - USA, probably not here now)

  • TO RENAME TITLE = author updating
  • KT: complete CIP & well discussed

CPS-???? | Reading metadata in Plutus contracts #474 (Mateusz Czeladka / matiwinnetou)

  • "This is by design" so nothing we can do with this one.  (KT will close with comment: lack of details & something they decided not to design as such, with no intention from Plutus to change it.)
  • CLOSED after meeting & explained by KT as a calculated design decision.

Review

CIP-0030 | Add chain id to differentiate between testnets #323 (WingRiders = ??? ANYONE HERE from ...?)

  • Online reviews haven't been accomodated yet:
    • Seba points out 1 or 2 technical errors in CIP-0034 schema which hasn't been corrected.
  • My last comment: we're still trying to get feedback from other developers...

    • 1 did come in like "Why do we need this" (suggesting JSON instead).

    • a trivial spelling mistake (we can't fix without write access to branch)

  • my feeling: NOT READY to merge as-is... can we get / do we need more DEV FEEDBACK?
    • PROBLEM WITH MERGING is this puts changes into CIP-0030 that aren't well agreed upon yet (if it were its own document I'd say go ahead and merge it)
  • tech oriented review going OK in meeting, extending what's on GitHub already.

NFT metadata extension tag #343 (Jack-0 / jack7e / ada9000)

  • update to CIP-0025 - going back to Oct 2022 - stalled for lack of participation from devs & CIP-0025 authors.
  • marked WAITING FOR AUTHOR since no response to KT last comment that it's "not receivable" for these reasons.
    • MY OPINION this could be closed for lack of author engagement. (4.5 months)

CIP-0077? | Verified Stake Pool Identity #361 (Dennis Mittmann / Maetti79: I invited him to meeting)

  • MY LAST COMMENT (wouldn't recommend closing yet... only inactive 1 month)

    • marking "Waiting for author" because there's been no response yet to the feedback above & no comments from the SPOs who would be the mainly interested parties for this.
    • Personally I think it that having this CIP on the books would be an asset in the "Contingent Staking" dialogue that flared up in the last month.  If you can continue the work on this proposal I feel sure the community would welcome it.

  • RAN OUT OF TIME so need proper review next meeting (I personally coordinated with author about this)

  • RECOMMENDED that this be presented as topic for SPO call, via @gufmar (Markus):

    • Related to idea of on-chain voting for SPOs.
    • Can hand over to Markus = CF SPO contact.

  • my summary POSTED (cardano-foundation/CIPs#361 (comment))