Celestia Core Devs Call 1
YazzyYaz opened this issue · comments
Celestia Core Devs Call 1
Meeting Information
When: Wednesday, November 29, 5:00 PM CET, 90 minutes max
Where: Celestia Youtube Livestream
Agenda
- Brief Introduction to Celestia Core Devs Call
- Client Team Roll Call
- Consensus
- Celestia Core/App
- Data Availability
- Celestia Node
- Eiger
- Consensus
- Overview of CIP-1
- Electing CIP Editors
- Yaz Khoury
- Josh Stein
- Rough Consensus of moving CIP-1 to Last Call
- Proposal for Working Groups for non-Core Workstreams
- DA Working Group
- Includes Eiger and Celestia Node
- Propose a Chairman/Chairwoman
- Interface Working Group
- Includes rollups like Astria and Eclipse and their work involving working with Node API
- Includes teams like PK Labs and Modular Cloud and their work involving working with core/app API
- Propose a Chairman/Chairwoman
- DA Working Group
- Consensus-critical minfee proposal
- Converting ADRs to CIPs for the mechanism behind upgrading for v2 and the signalling mechanism that will be used afterwards
- Starting CIP for adopting relayer incentivisation middleware
- Starting a CIP for Gas Refunds
- Starting a CIP for adopting the Packet Forward Middleware
- Starting a CIP for the SNARK protected accounts
- Informational CIP to rename DA to DP
- CIP to Standardize data expiry time for pruned nodes
- CIP to capture on-chain governance parameters in a living document
Please post all relevant proposals below that should be discussed and evaluated
Hi, could you also add one more item in the agenda for discussion and evaluation?
- CIP-rename_da_to_dp (CIP-4) going to draft
@fewwwww for the first call we will primarily focus on CIP-1 so won't have time to go over new proposals yet. I can add this for discussion on the following call. If you can send me a message on telegram (@Yazanator) I can include your proposal in a future call.
as I see it currently, the most important things to discuss after CIP-1 are:
-
Consensus critical minfee (initial ADR that is will be included in a CIP soon)
- Makeing the minfee consensus critical
- How to determine the minimum fee in a dynamic way
- Where the fee should go
-
Converting ADRs to CIPs for the mechanism behind upgrading for v2 and the signalling mechanism that will be used afterwords
If we have time:
-
Starting a CIP for Gas Refunds
-
Starting a CIP for adopting the Packet Forward Middleware
-
Starting a CIP for the SNARK protected accounts
Could we also add in to the (if there is time):
Starting a CIP for adopting relayer incentivisation middleware, specification linked here
If we want to include p2p network breaking changes in CIPs(which I am still slightly skeptical about), we should also start a discussion on the new sampling protocol and storage for the node, if time.
CIP-1 last call? I don't think so. There are many text mistakes in the doc.
"Preamble: RFC 822 style headers containing metadata about the CIP, including the CIP number, a short descriptive title (limited to a maximum of 44 characters), a description (limited to a maximum of 140 characters), and the author details. Regardless of the category, the title and description should not include the CIP number. See below for details."
It's too short, you see, even the title of Cip-1 "Celestia Improvement Proposal Process and Guidelines" is more than 50 chars.
"Reference Implementation (optional): This optional section contains a reference/example implementation that people can use to better understand or implement the specification. This section can be omitted for all CIPs."
here I suggest adding a reference of
"Core CIPs
For Core CIPs, you'll need to either provide a client implementation or persuade clients to implement your CIP, given that client implementations are mandatory for Core CIPs to reach the Final stage (see "CIP Process" below)."
like
"This section can be omitted for all CIPs at initialization (mandatory for Core CIPs to reach the Final stage)."
to avoid confusion.
"Each CIP must begin with an RFC 822 style header preamble, preceded and followed by three hyphens (---). This header is also termed “front matter” by Jekyll. The headers must appear in the following order."
remove this because even the CIP-1 itself doesn't comply?
"CIP Editor Responsibilities"
maybe, moving this section to CIP-2 is better?
@HoytRen why don't you make a PR instead on these stylistic changes you think should be modified? Easier than commenting on an agenda call which isn't the best way to address the stylistic changes you want to see. CIP-1 is a Markdown file so you can propose a PR with changes and I am happy to review it.
Hi @YazzyYaz, I just want to find a place to discuss these before I can do something. Using the forum is better? You see, I feel the length limit is too small, but what's the proper length, I'm not sure. Or we may simply change 'characters' to 'words'?
Just make a PR with your desired changes and we can discuss on the PR. These are literally stylistic or semantic changes. They're not a blocker for CIP-1
Ok, let me think about the proposal and create a PR tomorrow.
Discussing a CIP for a living document to reference on-chain governance parameters so they're easy to reference within CIP process
Video of Call: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhWHHmPo_5Q
Tweet thread: https://twitter.com/JoshCStein/status/1729893879191621702
@jcstein when you can, your tweet thread is valuable also as a note taking of the call. Maybe making a public notion link for the call as notes from the tweet thread?
Next agenda meeting #22