Governance

Anchor document

ipfs://bafkreid3opham3ir4tqstwanlaziyh4oeyfhmpxa2jnehuoeaybsutip3m
Hash matches the chain Open original
KtorZ · signed

This document doesn't follow CIP-108 or CIP-119, so there is nothing to lay out. The raw JSON is below.

Document

Hash (BLAKE2b-256)
a292005c4850e815f4e710093034f83202687f78882b15c3edcdaa3460aaa779
Hash on chain
a292005c4850e815f4e710093034f83202687f78882b15c3edcdaa3460aaa779
Fetched from
https://ipfs.blockfrost.dev/ipfs/bafkreid3opham3ir4tqstwanlaziyh4oeyfhmpxa2jnehuoeaybsutip3m
Raw JSON-LD
{
  "@context": {
    "@language": "en-us",
    "CIP100": "https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0100/README.md#",
    "CIP129": "https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0129/README.md#",
    "CIP136": "https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0136/README.md#",
    "hashAlgorithm": "CIP100:hashAlgorithm",
    "body": {
      "@id": "CIP136:body",
      "@context": {
        "govActionId": "CIP129:governance-action-identifiers",
        "references": {
          "@id": "CIP100:references",
          "@container": "@set",
          "@context": {
            "GovernanceMetadata": "CIP100:GovernanceMetadataReference",
            "Other": "CIP100:OtherReference",
            "label": "CIP100:reference-label",
            "uri": "CIP100:reference-uri",
            "RelevantArticles": "CIP136:RelevantArticles"
          }
        },
        "summary": "CIP136:summary",
        "rationaleStatement": "CIP136:rationaleStatement",
        "precedentDiscussion": "CIP136:precedentDiscussion",
        "counterargumentDiscussion": "CIP136:counterargumentDiscussion",
        "conclusion": "CIP136:conclusion",
        "internalVote": {
          "@id": "CIP136:internalVote",
          "@container": "@set",
          "@context": {
            "constitutional": "CIP136:constitutional",
            "unconstitutional": "CIP136:unconstitutional",
            "abstain": "CIP136:abstain",
            "didNotVote": "CIP136:didNotVote",
            "againstVote": "CIP136:againstVote"
          }
        }
      }
    },
    "authors": {
      "@id": "CIP100:authors",
      "@container": "@set",
      "@context": {
        "did": "@id",
        "name": "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name",
        "witness": {
          "@id": "CIP100:witness",
          "@context": {
            "witnessAlgorithm": "CIP100:witnessAlgorithm",
            "publicKey": "CIP100:publicKey",
            "signature": "CIP100:signature"
          }
        }
      }
    }
  },
  "hashAlgorithm": "blake2b-256",
  "body": {
    "govActionId": "gov_action1pv7g8d0x9f3kqw2gcfrmgl8aqy38jat05wx0wwcvdsvuuclss6xqqhpzemv",
    "summary": "Ok, but questionable.",
    "rationaleStatement": "The proposal addresses a legitimate concern regarding maintainer sustainability, dependency health, and ecosystem resilience in the Open Source landscape. As such, it can reasonably be considered aligned with Article I.1, as the long-term sustainability of Cardano depends on the continued maintenance of critical open-source components.\n\nHowever, several constitutional concerns remain:\n\n- First, the proposal only partially satisfies Article II.7.2. While it references prior initiatives and experience, it is necessary to read between the lines to figure out that prior fundings was sent to IntersectMBO and not directly to the proposer.\n\n- Second, the proposal identifies an initial administrator but relies on the future creation of an independent legal entity that does not yet exist. The governance structure, legal form, and leadership of that entity remain undefined at the time of submission. While the proposal describes an intended transition, the ultimate budget administrator remains uncertain. However, this does not constitute in itself a violation of Article II.7.5, since even self-administered budgets are tolerated. \n\n- Finally, a substantial portion of the requested budget is allocated toward the creation and operation of the administrative structure itself. The proposal provides extensive justification for the existence of the problem, but comparatively less justification for why the proposed institution-building effort is the appropriate mechanism to address it. This raises questions regarding proportionality, value-for-money and the agreement with the core tenets. Such considerations ultimately fall within the remit of DReps rather than constitutional compliance.\n\nOverall, despite the concerns above, I do not find a clear violation of the Constitution, even though it walks a thin line."
  },
  "authors": [
    {
      "name": "KtorZ",
      "witness": {
        "witnessAlgorithm": "ed25519",
        "publicKey": "ce0e80c60a0e16a9254d613dfadbcbdca2ac60ec105dc2f136636807d75dab01",
        "signature": "d82a24f2e5e67b00da8921df91d28b890b8f8cb515e346679c5443a2650b5e9e1c9e0e754e7d29e5970f1d0117df3528c9b774031151409c04c50719632bfb08"
      }
    }
  ]
}