meta-DEP revisions

2 files changed, 98 insertions, 48 deletions

diff --git a/0000-template.md b/0000-template.md
index 8b746e5..b269b1c 100644
--- a/0000-template.md
+++ b/0000-template.md
@@ -3,12 +3,14 @@ Title: **DEP-0000: My Proposal**
 
 Short Name: `0000-my-proposal`
 
-Type: (Standard or Process)
+Type: (Standard, Process, or Informative)
 
 Status: Undefined (as of YYYY-MM-DD)
 
 Github PR: (add HTTPS link here after PR is opened)
 
+Authors: TBD
+
 # Summary
 [summary]: #summary
 
diff --git a/proposals/0001-dep-process.md b/proposals/0001-dep-process.md
index 438b14f..29838ff 100644
--- a/proposals/0001-dep-process.md
+++ b/proposals/0001-dep-process.md
@@ -7,19 +7,26 @@ Type: Process
 
 Status: Draft (as of 2018-01-15)
 
-Github PR: (add HTTPS link here after PR is opened)
+Github PR: [https://github.com/datprotocol/DEPs/pull/2]()
 
+Authors: TBD
 
 # Summary
 [summary]: #summary
 
-The DEP ("Dat Enhancement Proposal") process is how the Dat open source
+The Dat Enhancement Proposal ("DEP") process is how the Dat open source
 community comes to (distributed) consensus around technical protocol
 enhancements and organizational process.
 
 # Motivation
 [motivation]: #motivation
 
+The community around the Dat protocol has grown to the point that standards
+documentation and decision making centered around source code (an open
+reference implementation) and a single whitepaper is insufficient. A specific
+growing pain is the bandwidth of a small number of implementors to respond to
+all informal proposals or requests for clarification on their own.
+
 A public DEP process is expected to increase the quality of core technical
 protocols and library implementations (by clarifying changes early in the
 process and allowing structured review by more individuals), lower the barrier
@@ -30,16 +37,21 @@ group of developers and end users.
 
 An additional goal of the process is to empower collaborators who are not core
 Dat developers or paid staff to participate in community decision making around
-protocols and process. Core developers still have special roles and
-responsibilities, but need not be a bottleneck or single-point-of-failure for
-the ecosystem as a whole.
+protocols and process. Certain individuals will have special roles and
+responsibilities, but should be less of a bottleneck or single-point-of-failure
+for the ecosystem as a whole.
+
+# Submitting a Proposal
+[submit]: #submit
 
-# Usage Documentation
-[usage-documentation]: #usage-documentation
+Before writing and proposing a DEP, which takes some time, it's best to
+informally pitch your idea to see if others are already working on something
+very similar, or if your idea has been discussed previously. This could take
+place over chat, a short github issue, or any other medium.
 
 The process for proposing and debating a new DEP is:
 
-* Fork this git repository
+* Fork the [datprotocol/deps](https://github.com/datprotocol/deps) repository
 * Copy `0000-template.md` to `proposals/0000-my-proposal.md` (don't chose the
   "next" number, use zero; `my-proposal` should be a stub identifier for the
   proposal)
@@ -48,43 +60,71 @@ The process for proposing and debating a new DEP is:
   your ideas down in writing, the faster others can point out issues or related
   efforts. Feel free to tweak or expand the structure (headers, content) of the
   document to fit your needs.
-* Submit a github pull request for discussion. The proposal will likely be
-  ammended based on review and comments. Go ahead and `cc:` specific community
-  members who you think would be good reviewers, though keep in mind
+* Submit a github pull request for discussion. The initial proposal will likely
+  be ammended based on review and comments. Go ahead and `cc:` specific
+  community members who you think would be good reviewers, though keep in mind
   everybody's time and attention is finite..
-* Build consensus. This part of the process is not bounded in time, and will
-  likely involve both discussion on the PR comment thread and elsewhere (IRC,
-  etc).
+* Build interest and consensus. This part of the process will likely involve
+  both discussion on the PR comment thread and elsewhere (IRC, etc).
 * Consider drafting or prototyping an implementation to demonstrate your
   proposal and work out all the details. This step isn't strictly necessary,
   however: a proposer does not need to be a developer.
-* If consensus seems to have emerged (for or against the proposal), a team
-  member will assign an DEP number, update the status, and merge the PR.
+* If the DEP is well-formed and there is sufficient interest (for or against
+  the proposal), a team member will assign an DEP number, update the status,
+  and merge the PR.  Standards DEPs which need implementation or details to be
+  worked out, can be accepted as "Draft"; DEPs with strong acceptance can go
+  straight to "Active".
+* A "Draft" DEP can be upgraded to "Active" after some time has passed and
+  confidence has been increased (eg, unresolved issues have been addressed,
+  implementations have been shown in the wild) by opening a PR for discussion
+  that sets the new Status.
 * Small tweaks (grammar, clarifications) to a merged DEP can take place as
   regular github PRs; revisiting or significantly revising should take place as
-  a new DEP.
+  a new DEP. "Draft" and "Process" DEPs have a lower bar for evolution over
+  time via direct PR.
+
+All DEPs should have a type ("Standard" or "Process") and a status.
+
+For appropriate DEPs (including *all* Standards DEPs), authors should
+explicitly consider and note impacts on:
 
-DEPs should have a type ("Standard" or "Process") and a status.
+* Privacy and User Rights: consider reading IETF [RFC 6973] ("Privacy
+  Considerations for Internet Protocols") and [RFC 8280] ("Research into Human
+  Rights Protocol Considerations")
+* Backwards compatibility of on-disk archives and older network clients
 
-# Reference Documentation
+[RFC-6973]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6973
+[RFC-8280]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8280
+
+# Details
 [reference-documentation]: #reference-documentation
 
 DEPs should have a type:
 
 * **Standard** for technical changes to the protocol, on-disk formats, or
-  public APIs.
+  public APIs. These are intented to be *proscriptive*, and to clearly
+  delineate which features and behaviors are mandatory or optional.
 * **Process** for formalizing community processes or other (technical or
   non-technical) decisions. For example, a security vulnerability reporting
   policy, a process for handling conflicts of interest, or procedures for
   mentoring new developers.
-
-The status of an DEP can be:
-
-* **Draft**: writen up, open PR for discussion
-* **Active**: PR accepted; adopted or intended for implementation in mainline
-  libraries and clients as appropriate
-* **Closed**: PR was closed without merging; either consensus was against, a
-  decision was postponed, or the authors withdrew their proposal.
+* **Informative** for describing conventions, design patterns, existing norms,
+  special considerations, etc.
+
+The status of a DEP can be:
+
+* **Pre-Merge**: a well-formed DEP has been written and a PR opened. The
+  "Status" line can list "Draft" when in this state.
+* **Draft**: PR has been merged and a number assigned, but additional time is
+  needed for deeper discussion or more implementation before being fully
+  accepted.
+* **Active**: adopted or intended for implementation in mainline libraries and
+  clients as appropriate
+* **Closed**: either consensus was against, a decision was postponed, or the
+  authors withdrew their proposal. This could apply to any of: a proposal PR
+  that was never merged, a merged Draft (which was never Active), or an Active
+  DEP which there is now consensus against without a specific new DEP to
+  replace it.
 * **Superseded**: a formerly "active" DEP has been made obsolete by a new
   active DEP; the new DEP should specify specific old DEPs that it would
   supersede.
@@ -95,6 +135,11 @@ status.
 A template file is provided, but sections can be added or removed as
 appropriate for a specific DEP.
 
+The DEP text itself should be permissively licensed; the convention is to use
+the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY), with attribution to the major
+contributing authors listed.
+
+
 # Drawbacks
 [drawbacks]: #drawbacks
 
@@ -110,10 +155,23 @@ another" place to look.
 [docs]: https://docs.datproject.org/
 [datproto-group]: https://github.com/datprotocol
 
-# Rationale and alternatives
-[alternatives]: #alternatives
+# Background and References
+[references]: #references
+
+The following standards processes were referenced and considered while
+designing the DEP process:
 
-**TODO:**
+* **BitTorrent Enhancement Process** as described in [BEP 1][bep-1].
+* **[Rust Language RFC Process][rust-rfc]**
+* **[IETF RFC Process][ietf]**
+* **[XMPP Standards Process][xmpp]**
+* **Python Enhancement Process** documented in [PEP 1][pep-1].
+
+[bep-1]: http://bittorrent.org/beps/bep_0001.html
+[rust-rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs
+[xmpp]: https://xmpp.org/about/standards-process.html
+[ietf]: https://www.ietf.org/about/process-docs.html
+[pep-1]: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0001/
 
 # Unresolved questions
 [unresolved]: #unresolved-questions
@@ -123,26 +181,16 @@ accepting or rejecting a given DEP? Optimistically, it would be clear from
 reading a PR discussion thread whether "consensus" has been reached or not, but
 this might be ambiguous or intimidating to first-time contributors.
 
-When are or are not accepted DEPs binding? Presumably a technical DEP should
-indicate whether it is optional or mandatory.
-
-Are "standard"/technical and "process" the right categories and terms to use?
-Some DEP systems (like the IETF one) also use terminology like "informational"
-(seems like we could rely on blog posts) an "normative". This might be helpful
-for documenting things like peer discovery methods, which have intentially not
-been specified as part of the formal spec (to make it clear that there is no
-single "right way" to do discovery), but they should be documented somewhere.
+The intention is to retroactively document the entire Dat protocol in the form
+of DEPs, but the details and structure for this haven't been worked out.
 
-Some communities eventually subsume the core protocol specification itself into
-the DEP process (for example, the official Bittorrent protocol was documented
-in a "BEP"). Should dat do this? Or rely on the current (and possibly future)
-Dat whitepaper?
+How mutable should Draft Standards DEPs be over time? What about Process DEPs?
+Should there be an additional status ("Living"?) for DEPs that are expected to
+evolve, or is this against the whole idea of having specific immutable
+documents to reference?
 
 # Changelog
 [changelog]: #changelog
 
-A brief statemnt about current status can go here, follow by a list of dates
-when the status line of this DEP changed (in most-recent-last order).
-
 - 2018-01-15: TODO: First complete draft submitted for review