Title: **DEP-0001: The Dat Enhancement Proposal Process** Short Name: `0001-dep-process` Type: Process Status: Draft (as of 2018-01-15) Github PR: [https://github.com/datprotocol/DEPs/pull/2]() Authors: TBD # Summary [summary]: #summary 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 to additional implementations of the protocols (by clarifying implementation details and norms not included in the core specification itself), and to make the development process more transparent, accessible, and scalable to a growing 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. 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 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 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) * Fill in the DEP template. The more details you can fill in at the begining, the more feedback reviewers can leave; on the other hand, the sooner you put 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 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 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 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. "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: * 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 [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. 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. * **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. A changelog should be kept in the DEP itself giving the date of any changes of 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 There are already multiple sources of technical documentation: the Dat [protocol website][proto-website], the Dat [whitepaper][whitepaper], Dat website [documentation section][docs], the [discussion repo][discussion-repo] issues, and the [datprotocol github group][datproto-group] (containing, eg, the `dat.json` repo/spec). Without consensus and consolidation, this would be "yet another" place to look. [proto-website]: https://www.datprotocol.com/ [whitepaper]: https://github.com/datproject/docs/blob/master/papers/dat-paper.md [docs]: https://docs.datproject.org/ [datproto-group]: https://github.com/datprotocol # Background and References [references]: #references The following standards processes were referenced and considered while designing the DEP process: * **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 Who are "core developers"? What is the specific decision making process for 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. 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. 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 - 2018-01-15: TODO: First complete draft submitted for review