An effective KIP is one that gets across the essential nature of the proposal concisely, while also providing necessary detail about its benefits, implementation/budget requirements, mission alignment and potential risks. To make this easier for writers and for the community and Sophons, we’ve developed a standardized process for drafting KIPs that includes a set of templates to guide drafting, editing and review. We present these here in a living document that we expect will evolve over time as the Rook DAO and its technology continue to change.
Background
Governance proposals are at the core of Rook’s governance process. Ensuring that these proposals follow a consistent format and process for drafting is important to ensuring that the process is as efficient and effective as possible. To that end, this proposal expands on the basic format outlined in KIP-0 to specify several categories of KIPs, and provides a template for each.
These templates are expected to conform to a combination of general requirements applicable to all KIPs, as well as category-specific requirements that reflect the information necessary for collective analysis and decision-making about various domains over which the DAO has decision power. The general and specific requirements are described further below.
General Requirements
Editorial requirements
A KIP should be written in plain language, formatted as Markdown on the forum. It should clearly and completely describe the proposal, its motivations, and why the author believes it improves the status quo. Where applicable, it should also describe a set of steps to enact the proposal. Authors and Governance Stewards (a role defined more fully in KIP X, the process one) should work together to ensure that the KIP meets at least the following minimum requirements:
- Consistency: Does it contradict itself or any other KIP?
- Accuracy: Are its data, arguments, and understanding of systems complete, accurate, and up-to-date? Are data points supported by citations with dates specified?
- Feasibility: Does it propose outcomes or require resources that are impossible or impractical?
- Mission Alignment and Rationale: Does the proposal provide a full rationale aligned with Rook DAO’s long-term goals and mission?
- Verifiable Execution and Reporting: Does the proposal provide a clear statement of how it would be executed, as well as the means for anyone verify for themselves that an implementation did occur in the way described by the KIP?
Formatting requirements
The bulk of formatting requirements for KIPs are driven by the templates for individual categories. The unifying element across all templates is the need for a header at the top of each proposal that contains metadata that can be used to help organize the governance record. The required components are:
-
titleThe title of the proposed KIP -
categoryThe category of the proposal (see table in following section). -
authorA list of author names (or usernames if anonymous), along with e-mail addresses or another way to contact them. -
createdDate that the proposal was created in the forum. Should be in ISO 8601 format (YYYY-MM-DD). -
replaces(If relevant) Comma-separated list of KIPs that the proposed KIP would replace. -
dependencies(If relevant) Comma-separated list of KIPs on which the proposed KIP relies.
Rook’s Governance Stewards will amend and expand on these fields as and when the proposal moves through the process, but these fields are necessary to begin that process.
Specific Requirements: Categories and Templates
In addition to the General Requirements described above, each KIP will be required to conform to one of the following categories, and to use the template developed for that category. Proposal authors are expected to work first with the Stewards to identify the most appropriate category and thus template. If there is no relevant template for a given proposal, the Stewards will work with the author to ensure that the proposal rises to the same standards of argument and disclosure. In the event of a dispute over categorization, the Sophons will make a final determination of the most appropriate format.
The table below lists the categories as well as historical precedents, and includes links to the templates each proposal must choose from. The individual templates are posted as separate drafts in this section of the forum.
| Category | Description/Use | Prior KIPs* | Template |
|---|---|---|---|
| Integration | Integrating Rook’s protocol and products with other protocols | 7, 17, 18 | Template |
| Research/Dev Grant | Funding significant research and development efforts | 20 | Template |
| Product | Altering products post-launch | 16, 19 | |
| Treasury Investment | Making specific investments using Rook treasury funds | 5, 6, 10, 11, 22 | |
| Budget | Requests for funding from the DAO for ongoing activities | 3, 15 | |
| Governance Process | Changes to Rook DAO’s governance process | 0, 1, 8 | |
| Delegation of Powers | Delegating discretionary powers to specific parties | 12, 21, 23 | Template |
| Core Documents | Establishing ongoing principles and frameworks for the DAO | 28 |
* Examples are as of November 23, 2022.