| KIP | 1 |
|---|---|
| title | KIP Purpose and Guidelines |
| author | Leandre (@niulingyun) |
| status | Implemented |
| created | 2021-04-02 |
| requires | N/A |
KIP stands for KCC Improvement Proposal, it has been adapted from the EIP (Ethereum Improvement Proposal). The purpose of this process is to ensure changes to KCC are transparent and well governed. An KIP is a design document providing information to the KIP community about a proposed change to the system. The author is responsible for building consensus within the community and documenting dissenting opinions.
We intend KIPs to be the primary mechanisms for proposing new features, collecting community input on an issue, and for documenting the design decisions for changes to KCC. Because they are maintained as text files in a versioned repository, their revision history is the historical record of the feature proposal.
It is highly recommended that a single KIP contain a single key proposal or new idea. The more focused the KIP, the more successful it is likely to be.
An KIP must meet certain minimum criteria. It must be a clear and complete description of the proposed enhancement. The enhancement must represent a net improvement.
Parties involved in the process are the author, the KIP editors, the [KIP Core Contributors], and the KIP Community.
Your role as the champion is to write the KIP using the style and format described below, shepherd the discussions in the appropriate forums, and build community consensus around the idea. Following is the process that a successful KIP will move along:
[ WIP ] -> [ PROPOSED ] -> [ APPROVED ] -> [ IMPLEMENTED ] X [ REJECTED ]
Each status change is requested by the KIP author and reviewed by the KIP editors. Use a pull request to update the status. Please include a link to the github issue where people should continue discussing your KIP. The KIP editors will process these requests as per the conditions below.
-
Work in progress (WIP) -- Once the champion has asked the KCC community whether an idea has any chance of support, they will write a draft KIP as a pull request. Consider including an implementation if this will aid people in studying the KIP.
-
Proposed If agreeable, KIP editor will assign the KIP a number (generally the issue or PR number related to the KIP) and merge your pull request. The KIP editor will not unreasonably deny an KIP. Proposed KIPs will be discussed on a github issue. If there is a reasonable level of consensus around the change on the governance call the change will be moved to approved. If the change is contentious a vote of token holders may be held to resolve the issue or approval may be delayed until consensus is reached.
-
Approved -- This KIP has passed community governance and is now being prioritised for development.
-
Implemented -- This KIP has been implemented and deployed to mainnet.
-
Rejected -- This KIP has failed to reach community consensus.
Each KIP should have the following parts:
- Preamble - RFC 822 style headers containing metadata about the KIP, including the KIP number, a short descriptive title (limited to a maximum of 44 characters), and the author details.
- Simple Summary - “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” Provide a simplified and layman-accessible explanation of the KIP.
- Abstract - a short (~200 word) description of the technical issue being addressed.
- Motivation (*optional) - The motivation is critical for KIPs that want to change KCC. It should clearly explain why the existing specification is inadequate to address the problem that the KIP solves. KIP submissions without sufficient motivation may be rejected outright.
- Specification - The technical specification should describe the syntax and semantics of any new feature.
- Rationale - The rationale fleshes out the specification by describing what motivated the design and why particular design decisions were made. It should describe alternate designs that were considered and related work, e.g. how the feature is supported in other languages. The rationale may also provide evidence of consensus within the community, and should discuss important objections or concerns raised during discussion.
- Test Cases - Test cases may be added during the implementation phase but are required before implementation.
- Copyright Waiver - All KIPs must be in the public domain. See the bottom of this KIP for an example copyright waiver.
KIPs should be written in markdown format.
Image files should be included in a subdirectory of the assets folder for that KIP as follows: assets/KIP-X (for kip X). When linking to an image in the KIP, use relative links such as ../assets/kip-X/image.png.
Each KIP 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. Headers marked with "*" are optional and are described below. All other headers are required.
kip: (this is determined by the KIP editor)
title:
author: <a list of the author's or authors' name(s) and/or username(s), or name(s) and email(s). Details are below.>
* discussions-to: <a url pointing to the official github issue>
status: < WIP | PROPOSED | APPROVED | IMPLEMENTED >
created:
* updated:
* requires: <KIP number(s)>
* resolution: <a url pointing to the resolution of this KIP>
Headers that permit lists must separate elements with commas.
Headers requiring dates will always do so in the format of ISO 8601 (yyyy-mm-dd).
The author header optionally lists the names, email addresses or usernames of the authors/owners of the KIP. Those who prefer anonymity may use a username only, or a first name and a username. The format of the author header value must be:
Random J. User <address@dom.ain>
or
Random J. User (@username)
if the email address or GitHub username is included, and
Random J. User
if the email address is not given.
While an KIP is in WIP or Proposed status, a discussions-to header will indicate the URL for the github issue where the KIP is being discussed.
The created header records the date that the KIP was assigned a number. Both headers should be in yyyy-mm-dd format, e.g. 2001-08-14.
The updated header records the date(s) when the KIP was updated with "substantial" changes. This header is only valid for KIPs of Draft and Active status.
KIPs may have a requires header, indicating the KIP numbers that this KIP depends on.
KIPs may include auxiliary files such as diagrams. Such files must be named KIP-XXXX-Y.ext, where “XXXX” is the KIP number, “Y” is a serial number (starting at 1), and “ext” is replaced by the actual file extension (e.g. “png”).
The current KIP editors are
* Leandre (@niulingyun)
* Caos (@caosbad)
For each new KIP that comes in, an editor does the following:
- Read the KIP to check if it is ready: sound and complete. The ideas must make technical sense, even if they don't seem likely to get to final status.
- The title should accurately describe the content.
- Check the KIP for language (spelling, grammar, sentence structure, etc.), markup (Github flavored Markdown), code style
If the KIP isn't ready, the editor will send it back to the author for revision, with specific instructions.
Once the KIP is ready for the repository, the KIP editor will:
-
Assign an KIP number (generally the PR number or, if preferred by the author, the Issue # if there was discussion in the Issues section of this repository about this KIP)
-
Merge the corresponding pull request
-
Send a message back to the KIP author with the next step.
Many KIPs are written and maintained by developers with write access to the KCC codebase. The KIP editors monitor KIP changes, and correct any structure, grammar, spelling, or markup mistakes we see.
The editors don't pass judgment on KIPs. We merely do the administrative & editorial part.
The KIP document was derived heavily from the EIP Ethereum Improvement Proposal document in many places text was simply copied and modified. Any comments about the KIP document should be directed to the KIP editors. The history of the EIP is quoted below from the EIP document for context:
- "This document (EIP) was derived heavily from Bitcoin's BIP-0001 written by Amir Taaki which in turn was derived from Python's PEP-0001. In many places text was simply copied and modified. Although the PEP-0001 text was written by Barry Warsaw, Jeremy Hylton, and David Goodger, they are not responsible for its use..." *
Oct 12, 2020: KIP 1 has been drafted and submitted as a PR.
See the revision history for further details, which is also available by clicking on the History button in the top right of the KIP.
Copyright and related rights waived via CC0.