CPS-???? | Social Governance

[Crypto2099]

A new CPS to orchestrate solutions to social governance problems that cannot be explicitly addressed through on-chain procedures and may need to be more malleable versus the on-chain Constitution document. This gives us an alternative pathway to steer and orchestrate new standards and behaviors amongst the community.

Link to rendered version: https://github.com/Crypto2099/CIPs/tree/social-governance-cps/CPS-XXXX

[rphair]

@Crypto2099 it is a pretty big implication that this creates a Governance category. As a devil's advocate I would have to say that the non-technical (i.e. non-Metadata) subject matter might place it outside the boundaries of the CIP process as defined by CIP-0001 itself & confirmed repeatedly afterward: especially in the arduous GitHub discussion of CIP-1694 before it was merged.

If it's not considered off-topic for the CIP process, the next question is how it relates to CPS-0007. Does it extend it, or deprecate it? In either case, why doesn't the latter document refer to the earlier one? Since the subject matter overlaps, how would people know which is relevant in cases where both might appear applicable? So, most importantly perhaps, why isn't this PR an update to CPS-0007?

https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/tree/master/CPS-0007

[rphair]

Setting for Triage to ensure that this timely & anticipated lively discussion will begin no later than the next CIP meeting: https://hackmd.io/@cip-editors/100

[Crypto2099]

@Crypto2099 it is a pretty big implication that this creates a Governance category. As a devil's advocate I would have to say that the non-technical (i.e. non-Metadata) subject matter might place it outside the boundaries of the CIP process as defined by CIP-0001 itself & confirmed repeatedly afterward: especially in the arduous GitHub discussion of CIP-1694 before it was merged.

I would argue that by lumping everything under metadata we then make the categorization itself worthless and if Catalyst can have its own category then certainly on-chain and off-chain governance should qualify to have a dedicated categorization scheme (although that is not a hill for this CPS to die on).

If it's not considered off-topic for the CIP process, the next question is how it relates to CPS-0007. Does it extend it, or deprecate it? In either case, why doesn't the latter document refer to the earlier one? Since the subject matter overlaps, how would people know which is relevant in cases where both might appear applicable? So, most importantly perhaps, why isn't this PR an update to CPS-0007?

I would argue that CPS-0007 related to on-chain governance (i.e. CIP-1694) and the technical implementation of governance whereas this CPS aims to address a fundamentally new issue that has only arisen this year during the drafting on the Cardano Constitution and that is the "off chain" processes that are necessary such as:

• Governance Actor Codes of Conduct
• Budget and other procedural patterns
• Election procedures

Also thank you Robert and looking forward to discussing this one (and the other CIPs to follow) during the next editor's meeting!

[rphair]

Removing Triage label as per #937 (comment) until this issue achieves CIP editor quorum & community consensus:

• New Category: Governance #937