[update] MIP-0 : Introduce status terms and editor role #32
Conversation
apenzk
changed the title
README.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| An MIP should at all times have one of the following statuses: | ||
| - **Draft** - (set by author) An MIP that is open for consideration. (It does not yet hold an MIP number) | ||
| - **Review** - (set by author) The MIP is under peer review. The MIP should receive an **MIP number** and the MIP should be registered in the MIP overview file. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@apenzk I like the statuses; they seem like a helpful way to track MIPs.
Could you add more details about how the MIP number is assigned and registered? Specifically what role registers the MIP, how the number is determined, and perhaps more information about or a link to the MIP overview file.
It may be helpful to define or introduce the editor role as well, if that's a new addition to our MIP process?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It may be helpful to define or introduce the editor role as well, if that's a new addition to our MIP process?
done.
| An MIP should at all times have one of the following statuses: | ||
| - **Draft** - (set by author) An MIP that is open for consideration. (It does not yet hold an MIP number) | ||
| - **Review** - (set by author) The MIP is under peer review. The MIP should receive an **MIP number** and the MIP should be registered in the MIP overview file. | ||
| - **Accepted** - (set by editor) An MIP that has been accepted. All technical changes requested have been addressed by the author. There may be additional non-technical changes requested by the MIP editor. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
One issue that may arise is: suppose an editor has a technical change that the author doesn't agree with. Is there some mechanism that we could add, to resolve such disagreements or disputes?
Likewise, if, say, editors aren't available for timely reviews (which perhaps could happen due to various circumstances), should there be a process for allowing an interim editor to assume editorial responsibilities as needed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suppose an editor has a technical change that the author doesn't agree with. Is there some mechanism that we could add, to resolve such disagreements or disputes
How is this handled with PRs in other repos?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(i have addressed now the second para in the text)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suppose an editor has a technical change that the author doesn't agree with. Is there some mechanism that we could add, to resolve such disagreements or disputes
How is this handled with code PRs?
For PRs, we have a minimum number of approvals needed (3 for MIPs, 2 for PRs to aptos-core and 1 for PRs to movement).
What about this solution: If an editor requests a change from an author, either the author can make the changes (tacitly approving the editorial feedback), or:
If the author doesn't agree with the rquested changes, then the editor can mandate that the author implements the changes by getting 2 upvotes on their discussion comment mentioning the changes (assuming change requests will be made in the Discussion section of the MIP PR)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
sounds good. added this. thx!
apenzk
changed the title
Summary
The distribution of MIP number seems open to
Editors. This PR introduces editors as an additional actor in the system and who takes responsibility to help with the process of MIPs
MIP-Numbering. The numbering already is not aligned with the PR number when looking at the PRs. In order to provide a more consistent numbering, the MIP should also be intuitive (when looking at a list of MIPs). a different numbering scheme is proposed.
Status terms. To identify the different stages already from the PR title, certain status terms are introduced.
There is also a need for an overview of existing MIPs. This PR is a prelude for the overview introduced in this PR.
Motivation
MIP numbering may not be handled reliably by the authors of an IP. There may be confusion on the numbering, and an author may forget to add a new MIP to the overview list.
EIP has a well established standard : https://eips.ethereum.org/. However, the standard is too complex. Furthermore, the standard relies on a filtering process through a forum, which we do not have.
Inspired by EIP, this PR introduces a modification that can be handled in a small team, yet provides a clear path towards a well managed status of existing MIPs.