-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 318
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
CIP-0108? | Governance Metadata - Governance Actions #632
Conversation
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. |
There was a problem hiding this 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.
This proposal is looking quite good at the moment. |
Co-authored-by: Robert Phair <[email protected]>
3b243f6
to
2dc2c01
Compare
…foundation#637) * candidacies and merges from CIP meeting 78 * also promoted cardano-foundation#632
"title": "Name" | ||
}, | ||
"witness": { | ||
"$ref": "#/definitions/witness" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
I have significantly refactored the provided test vector's file and examples. This should make recreating examples much easier. |
There was a problem hiding this 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).
There was a problem hiding this 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.
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
📜 Rendered on fork