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

Introduce RFC Template, README, CC0 1.0 Universal License #2

Merged
merged 12 commits into from
Jul 14, 2023
59 changes: 59 additions & 0 deletions 0000-template.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
# RFC-0000: Feature Name Here

| | |
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

For discoverability and easier writing what about instead of a table we use a "front matter" in a machine parsable format like toml or yaml as supported by some static page generators(github renders it as a table), it can help tools to easily index and render proposals.

To that front matter perhaps I'd like to add a "tags" field that we can define elsewhere(e.g. a json file) to be able to categorize RFCs by topic, complexity, status, dependencies etc. It could be different fields but as I see them more as helpful optional metadata then one single tags field is simpler.
Example:

---
tags:
  - xcm
  - status:draft
  - relates:#123
  - trivial
---

| --------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| **Start Date** | Date of initial proposal |
| **Description** | One-sentence description |
| **Authors** | |

## Summary

One paragraph summary of the RFC.

## Motivation

Longer motivation behind the content of the RFC, presented as a combination of both problems and requirements for the solution.

## Stakeholders

A brief catalogue of the primary stakeholder sets of this RFC, with some description of previous socialization of the proposal.

## Explanation

Detail-heavy explanation of the RFC, suitable for explanation to an implementer of the changeset. This should address corner cases in detail and provide justification behind decisions, and provide rationale for how the design meets the solution requirements.

## Drawbacks

Description of recognized drawbacks to the approach given in the RFC. Non-exhaustively, drawbacks relating to performance, ergonomics, user experience, security, or privacy.

## Testing, Security, and Privacy

Describe the the impact of the proposal on these three high-importance areas - how implementations can be tested for adherence, effects that the proposal has on security and privacy per-se, as well as any possible implementation pitfalls which should be clearly avoided.

## Performance, Ergonomics, and Compatibility

Describe the impact of the proposal on the exposed functionality of Polkadot.

### Performance

Is this an optimization or a necessary pessimization? What steps have been taken to minimize additional overhead?

### Ergonomics

If the proposal alters exposed interfaces to developers or end-users, which types of usage patterns have been optimized for?

### Compatibility

Does this proposal break compatibility with existing interfaces, older versions of implementations? Summarize necessary migrations or upgrade strategies, if any.

## Prior Art and References

Provide references to either prior art or other relevant research for the submitted design.

## Unresolved Questions

Provide specific questions to discuss and address before the RFC is voted on by the Fellowship. This should include, for example, alternatives to aspects of the proposed design where the appropriate trade-off to make is unclear.

## Future Directions and Related Material

Describe future work which could be enabled by this RFC, if it were accepted, as well as related RFCs. This is a place to brain-dump and explore possibilities, which themselves may become their own RFCs.
122 changes: 122 additions & 0 deletions LICENSE
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
Creative Commons Legal Code

CC0 1.0 Universal

CREATIVE COMMONS CORPORATION IS NOT A LAW FIRM AND DOES NOT PROVIDE
LEGAL SERVICES. DISTRIBUTION OF THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT CREATE AN
ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP. CREATIVE COMMONS PROVIDES THIS
INFORMATION ON AN "AS-IS" BASIS. CREATIVE COMMONS MAKES NO WARRANTIES
REGARDING THE USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR THE INFORMATION OR WORKS
PROVIDED HEREUNDER, AND DISCLAIMS LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM
THE USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR THE INFORMATION OR WORKS PROVIDED
HEREUNDER.

Statement of Purpose

The laws of most jurisdictions throughout the world automatically confer
exclusive Copyright and Related Rights (defined below) upon the creator
and subsequent owner(s) (each and all, an "owner") of an original work of
authorship and/or a database (each, a "Work").

Certain owners wish to permanently relinquish those rights to a Work for
the purpose of contributing to a commons of creative, cultural and
scientific works ("Commons") that the public can reliably and without fear
of later claims of infringement build upon, modify, incorporate in other
works, reuse and redistribute as freely as possible in any form whatsoever
and for any purposes, including without limitation commercial purposes.
These owners may contribute to the Commons to promote the ideal of a free
culture and the further production of creative, cultural and scientific
works, or to gain reputation or greater distribution for their Work in
part through the use and efforts of others.

For these and/or other purposes and motivations, and without any
expectation of additional consideration or compensation, the person
associating CC0 with a Work (the "Affirmer"), to the extent that he or she
is an owner of Copyright and Related Rights in the Work, voluntarily
elects to apply CC0 to the Work and publicly distribute the Work under its
terms, with knowledge of his or her Copyright and Related Rights in the
Work and the meaning and intended legal effect of CC0 on those rights.

1. Copyright and Related Rights. A Work made available under CC0 may be
protected by copyright and related or neighboring rights ("Copyright and
Related Rights"). Copyright and Related Rights include, but are not
limited to, the following:

i. the right to reproduce, adapt, distribute, perform, display,
communicate, and translate a Work;
ii. moral rights retained by the original author(s) and/or performer(s);
iii. publicity and privacy rights pertaining to a person's image or
likeness depicted in a Work;
iv. rights protecting against unfair competition in regards to a Work,
subject to the limitations in paragraph 4(a), below;
v. rights protecting the extraction, dissemination, use and reuse of data
in a Work;
vi. database rights (such as those arising under Directive 96/9/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal
protection of databases, and under any national implementation
thereof, including any amended or successor version of such
directive); and
vii. other similar, equivalent or corresponding rights throughout the
world based on applicable law or treaty, and any national
implementations thereof.

2. Waiver. To the greatest extent permitted by, but not in contravention
of, applicable law, Affirmer hereby overtly, fully, permanently,
irrevocably and unconditionally waives, abandons, and surrenders all of
Affirmer's Copyright and Related Rights and associated claims and causes
of action, whether now known or unknown (including existing as well as
future claims and causes of action), in the Work (i) in all territories
worldwide, (ii) for the maximum duration provided by applicable law or
treaty (including future time extensions), (iii) in any current or future
medium and for any number of copies, and (iv) for any purpose whatsoever,
including without limitation commercial, advertising or promotional
purposes (the "Waiver"). Affirmer makes the Waiver for the benefit of each
member of the public at large and to the detriment of Affirmer's heirs and
successors, fully intending that such Waiver shall not be subject to
revocation, rescission, cancellation, termination, or any other legal or
equitable action to disrupt the quiet enjoyment of the Work by the public
as contemplated by Affirmer's express Statement of Purpose.

3. Public License Fallback. Should any part of the Waiver for any reason
be judged legally invalid or ineffective under applicable law, then the
Waiver shall be preserved to the maximum extent permitted taking into
account Affirmer's express Statement of Purpose. In addition, to the
extent the Waiver is so judged Affirmer hereby grants to each affected
person a royalty-free, non transferable, non sublicensable, non exclusive,
irrevocable and unconditional license to exercise Affirmer's Copyright and
Related Rights in the Work (i) in all territories worldwide, (ii) for the
maximum duration provided by applicable law or treaty (including future
time extensions), (iii) in any current or future medium and for any number
of copies, and (iv) for any purpose whatsoever, including without
limitation commercial, advertising or promotional purposes (the
"License"). The License shall be deemed effective as of the date CC0 was
applied by Affirmer to the Work. Should any part of the License for any
reason be judged legally invalid or ineffective under applicable law, such
partial invalidity or ineffectiveness shall not invalidate the remainder
of the License, and in such case Affirmer hereby affirms that he or she
will not (i) exercise any of his or her remaining Copyright and Related
Rights in the Work or (ii) assert any associated claims and causes of
action with respect to the Work, in either case contrary to Affirmer's
express Statement of Purpose.

4. Limitations and Disclaimers.

a. No trademark or patent rights held by Affirmer are waived, abandoned,
surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this document.
b. Affirmer offers the Work as-is and makes no representations or
warranties of any kind concerning the Work, express, implied,
statutory or otherwise, including without limitation warranties of
title, merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, non
infringement, or the absence of latent or other defects, accuracy, or
the present or absence of errors, whether or not discoverable, all to
the greatest extent permissible under applicable law.
c. Affirmer disclaims responsibility for clearing rights of other persons
that may apply to the Work or any use thereof, including without
limitation any person's Copyright and Related Rights in the Work.
Further, Affirmer disclaims responsibility for obtaining any necessary
consents, permissions or other rights required for any use of the
Work.
d. Affirmer understands and acknowledges that Creative Commons is not a
party to this document and has no duty or obligation with respect to
this CC0 or use of the Work.

53 changes: 53 additions & 0 deletions README.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1 +1,54 @@
# RFCs

This repository contains a number of Requests for Comment (RFCs) detailing proposed changes to the technical implementation of the Polkadot network. These RFCs are for the discussion and design of features which have been submitted for consideration to the developer Fellowship of Polkadot, as well as targets for the Fellowship's on-chain bodies to signal approval or disapproval of.

## Scope

According to the [Fellowship Manifesto](https://github.com/polkadot-fellows/manifesto/blob/0c3df46d76625980b8b48742cb86f4d8fa6dda8d/manifesto.pdf), members of the Polkadot Fellowship are responsible for expertise in the strict description(s) and/or implementation(s) of these areas of contribution:
* the internals of all functional Polkadot node implementations;
* cryptographic data-structures, algorithms, languages and APIs required for the continued upkeep of the Polkadot (Main) Network;
* consensus algorithms concerning the Relay-chain (BABE \& GRANDPA);
* trust-free bridges relying on said consensus algorithms (planned to be) utilised by system chains;
* parachain consensus;
* cross-chain message passing (XCMP, HRMP, DMP \& UMP);
* the Polkadot libp2p-based peer networking protocol;
* the Polkadot topology strategies;
* chain synchronisation strategies utilised by Polkadot;
* the Polkadot business-logic (aka the 'runtime');
* pallets utilised by the Polkadot (Main) Network and its system chains;
* the internals of the frame pallet framework;
* runtime and host APIs;
* the XCM specification and realisation;
* standard RPCs;
* user-interface code required to practically execute upgrades to the Polkadot (Main) Network; and
* code or technology required by, and utilised primarily for, any code or technology already included.

These RFCs are scoped to the subset of these concerns which must be held consistent across all implementations. Various implementation details, such as internal node algorithms, programming languages, or database formats are out of scope. Non-exhaustively, changes to network protocol descriptions, runtime logic and runtime public interfaces, inherents, transaction formats should be discussed via RFCs.

## Significance

These RFCs are in practice only a signaling mechanism to determine and indicate the Fellowship's design and architecture preferences and to coordinate discussion and social consensus on architectures and designs according to open-source principles.

The Fellowship holds only the powers vested in it by Polkadot's governance, which are limited to the expression of expert opinion and the ability to move proposals to more lenient governance tracks when necessary. It is not an arbiter of the "correctness" of any particular runtime or node implementation, and the practical meaning of these RFCs follows as a consequence of its limited powers.

For any RFC concerning runtime logic or interfaces, the Fellowship's capabilities are bounded by relay-chain governance, which is the ultimate decider of what code is adopted for block processing. As such, these RFCs are only loosely binding - the chains' governance has no obligation to accept the features as implemented and may accept features which have not gone through the RFC process. When it comes to node-side areas of expertise, the Fellowship's vote is more strongly binding, as the governance systems of the chains can't determine the environment the runtime is executed within, and in practice all node implementations should conform to some foundational standards in order to communicate.

Merged RFCs are only an indication of support for a specific design, not a commitment to an implementation of a feature on any particular timeframe or roadmap ordering.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

So we will then need some "external process" to come to agreement when certain protocol changes will be implemented?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, or essentially at the whim of the Polkadot Fellowship / development shops at the moment.

Development has what, when, who, and cost questions. RFCs only commit to the "what", and there should be other processes (implicit or explicit) for determining the rest. e.g. OpenGov may look at pending features and create bounties for ones it deems particularly important, groups of collaborators and maintainers need to form around them, etc. and putting these estimates in what are primarily technical descriptions doesn't make that much sense to me.


## Process

The RFC process is open to all contributors. Anyone may open an RFC or provide comments on open RFCs.

To open an RFC, follow these steps:
* Copy the `0000-template.md` file into the `text` folder and rename to match the title of the RFC
* Fill out the RFC template and open a PR.
* Rename the file to correspond to the GitHub pull request number and update the "RFC PR" field in the file.

The Fellowship will decide, via an on-chain voting mechanism including members III-Dan or above, when to approve and merge RFCs. It does so by issuing an on-chain remark with the body `RFC_APPROVE(xxxx, h)` from the `Fellows` origin on the Polkadot Collectives blockchain, where xxxx is the number of the RFC and h is the blake2-256 hash of the raw proposal text. Once this remark has been made, the PR can be merged. This on-chain process is designed to be resilient to where the RFCs are hosted and in what format, so it can be migrated away from GitHub in the future. The fellowship should not approve more than one RFC with the same number.

The Fellowship may also decide to reject an RFC by issuing a remark with the text `RFC_REJECT(xxxx, h)`. This is a formality to provide clarity on when PRs (or their analogue on non-GitHub platforms) may be closed. PRs may be closed by their author, as well. PRs may be closed when sufficiently stale, as well - after a period of 1 year without acceptance.
Comment on lines +47 to +49
Copy link
Contributor

@tomaka tomaka Jul 12, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I realize that it's not the most fun problem to solve, but if I had to name one problem in the Polkadot ecosystem it's: too many ideas, and most of them are either abandoned or not moving.

If the point of the fellowship is to be the "technical masters" of Polkadot, then they should fulfill their role of "opinion givers". It would in my opinion be preferably to have some kind of deadline after which fellowship members must vote. If the fellowship completely abstains from voting, it means that they (as a group) doesn't fulfill this role of giving opinions.
And if a specific member of the fellowship doesn't vote/give their opinion or doesn't want to, why are they in the fellowship in the first place? Shouldn't they get kicked out?

Also, in my opinion it should be mentioned that implementers should make a reasonable effort to implement the accepted RFCs. After all, if an implementer decides to forever post-pone implementing an RFC, it means that the opinion of the fellowship has no value.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@rphmeier rphmeier Jul 12, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It would in my opinion be preferably to have some kind of deadline after which fellowship members must vote

Disagree because,
a) it's not enforceable, has no consequences for not meeting that requirement
b) either you can have open RFCs that anyone can submit OR required voting
c) some ideas are just not worth spending time on

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

a) it's not enforceable, has no consequences for not meeting that requirement

Maybe there should be consequences?
My opinion is if a fellow is completely idle, they should be removed from the fellowship. Or is being a fellowship member some kind of irrevocable aristocratic title that grants you a rent for life for doing nothing?

b) either you can have open RFCs that anyone can submit OR required voting
c) some ideas are just not worth spending time on

It seems that these two points are to counter spam. There's been 0 spam so far, and the PPPs repository has had 0 spam in its entire existence, so to me this feels like you want to solve a non-existing problem.

Spammers are rarely elaborate. Some people might open a PR that just says "when moon" or something, but these are easily closed as obviously non-serious.

If someone took the time to write down in deep technical details some changes that they want to see, passive-aggressively ghosting them would be an extremely non-welcoming thing to do.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

My opinion is if a fellow is completely idle, they should be removed from the fellowship. Or is being a fellowship member some kind of irrevocable aristocratic title that grants you a rent for life for doing nothing?

No, to stay in the fellowship you need to prove you're active. Any serious RFC should be able to find a champion who will create a referendum on-chain, but rules vs. social norms are very different things.

If lots of serious RFCs are falling through the cracks I'd be the first person to push more fellows to be active.

to me this feels like you want to solve a non-existing problem.

Likewise - therefore it makes more sense now to have fewer rules and then add more based on the problems that do exist.


Problems, requirements, and descriptions in RFC text should be stated using the following definitions of terms, roughly as laid out in [IETF RFC 2119](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2119):
* The terms "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", or "REQUIRED" mean that the requirement is fixed and must be adhered to by implementations. These statements should be limited to those required for interoperability and security.
* The terms "SHOULD", "RECOMMENDED", "SHOULD NOT", or "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that there are only limited valid circumstances in which a requirement may be ignored.
* The terms "MAY" or "OPTIONAL" mean that the requirement is optional, though interoperability between implementations making different choices in this respect is required.