Title: **DEP-0001: The Dat Enhancement Proposal Process** Short Name: `0001-dep-process` Type: Process Status: Draft (as of 2018-01-15) Github PR: (add HTTPS link here after PR is opened) # Summary [summary]: #summary The DEP ("Dat Enhancement Proposal") process is how the Dat open source community comes to (distributed) consensus around technical protocol enhancements and organizational process. # Motivation [motivation]: #motivation 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. 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. # Usage Documentation [usage-documentation]: #usage-documentation The process for proposing and debating a new DEP is: * Fork this git 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 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). * 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. * 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. DEPs should have a type ("Standard" or "Process") and a status. # Reference Documentation [reference-documentation]: #reference-documentation DEPs should have a type: * **Standard** for technical changes to the protocol, on-disk formats, or public APIs. * **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. * **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. # 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 # Rationale and alternatives [alternatives]: #alternatives **TODO:** # 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. 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. 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? # 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