CPS-???? | Centralisation of development tools

[aleeusgr]

Description: This Cardano Problem Statement (CPS) proposes the exploration of decentralizing code collaboration within the Cardano Community. The goal is to incentivize community members to seed code repositories via cardano-node, promoting a self-sovereign collaboration network.

Motivation: The Cardano Community's current reliance on centralized platforms like GitHub poses risks to the community's autonomy and decentralization principles. By enabling cardano-node to seed it's code, we can enhance the security and autonomy of our code collaboration processes, reducing reliance on centralized platforms and mitigating associated risks.

Key aspects:

• Designing a reward mechanism to incentivize community members to seed code repositories via Cardano-node

Open questions:

• Scalability and usability of decentralized code collaboration
• Types of rewards and incentives for seeding code repositories via Cardano-node
• Balancing trade-offs between decentralization, security, and usability

[rphair]

@aleeusgr I think this is a great idea for the Cardano community in general and would be worth an all-around discussion to see if it has any place in the CIP process. For reasons given in #937 we have evolved a prejudice against CIP/CPSs that dictate social behaviour and I believe that would include choice of development or code sharing frameworks.

This is definitely something that should be considered with other editors regarding where on the line of "social governance" vs. the required "technical proposition" that it falls.

In the meantime we do need a properly formed CPS (see CIP-9999) so perhaps as you are editing it into this form you could consider that editorial & community requirement with respect to these questions:

• Does this CPS have "solutions" that would be submitted as CIPs?
  • If it has no "solutions" other than following its own recommendations, it's either a CIP or outside the scope of the CIP process.)
• Does it require social behaviour other than a straightforward audit / technical process to follow e.g. CIP-0052)?
  • If so then we can't accept it into the CIP process and perhaps belongs on a forthcoming "governance repository" (see issue above) or other forum for social initiatives. (cc @Crypto2099 @Ryun1)
• Does it outline a technical process for testing, measurement, assessment, adoption, comparison... that could evolve into particular solutions for more than one Cardano entity to follow?
  • If it does, then you have the basis for a good CPS that could help to standardise this goal by creating specific common targets for the whole community.

In the meantime I have to put this into Draft status since it's not written as a CPS (though it has the same section outline) and either you or the editors can take it out, and add to our next meeting discussion (where I think people would respond very well to the idea itself) when ready for review... after some response & rewrite over the above diagnostic questions.

[rphair]

p.s. @aleeusgr I've retitled the document as it would be titled if it were an actual CPS. If you were submitting a proposal to migrate from GitHub to Radicle, it would be a CIP rather than a CPS.

You can also visit this discussion to see how community & editors have negotiated the difference between the CIP and CPS medium for a general problem with a specific favoured solution:

• CIP-???? | Merkle Root of Transactions in Block Header #964

[aleeusgr]

I completely understand your point about the feature proposal not yet outlining a technical process for testing, measurement, assessment, adoption, and comparison. I appreciate your feedback and would like to take this opportunity to elaborate on the idea and explore ways to develop it further.

The feature we are proposing is to enable cardano-node to seed its own code using a decentralized code collaboration platform. This would allow for a more decentralized and secure way of managing and distributing code.

To move forward, I'd love to collaborate with experts in the field to refine the proposal and develop a comprehensive technical process. This would involve outlining specific testing and measurement protocols, assessing the feasibility of the solution, and identifying potential adoption pathways. I'm eager to discuss this idea with like-minded individuals and explore ways to bring it to life.

[rphair]

cross referencing Forum posting in case there is further discussion there: https://forum.cardano.org/t/a-statement-from-input-output-research-ior-in-respect-to-the-cardano-roadmap-tier-list-recently-published-by-the-cardano-foundation/145487/7

[aleeusgr]

proof of concept monitors the logs of a decentralized collaboration platform to send ADA from wallet A to wallet B if the specified entry appears: https://github.com/aleeusgr/solid-octo-train

[rphair]

@aleeusgr even though the Draft status is likely still appropriate, would you be interested in adding this to tomorrow's CIP meeting agenda (https://hackmd.io/@cip-editors/112) to help qualify whether this would be a CIP or a CPS (mainly as per #1039 (review))?

I can see aspects here of both a general problem definition and a specific solution: especially in light of your last comment as a solution component.

[aleeusgr]

Yes, I'll show up to the Editors meeting today, let's talk about the problem statement and find out if we can propose improvements.

It's 9-30 pm and I woke up at 3am, it'd be difficult to stay present at the time of the meeting.

[rphair]

FYI @aleeusgr we talked about this proposal at the CIP meeting a couple days ago & responses clustered around the suggestions above... i.e. it will be necessary to commit to a specific solution around a technical goal (CIP) or a description of related goals that could lead to technical solutions (CPS).

Editors & potential reviewers would prefer this to be done before submitting a document to the repository... but we can leave it incubating as Draft for a while longer while you decide which path to take & update the document. Editors will look for specific solutions / problem aspects that differentiate it from the less rigorous & more social statements that better suit blog & forum articles.

[aleeusgr]

Thank you for the detailed communication! This repository has the most friendly PR process in whole of Cardano!

There are more layers of complexity to the problem than I thought, in particular what could be a good solution and what value Github provides for the users and why would anyone want to use anything else.

Still I don't think lack of a good solution makes the problem irrelevant. I acknowledge that it might look as if I am suggesting social behavior to follow, which was not my intent - I am looking at how we could improve utility of the network for its users. Enabling decentralized development of open source components of Cardano we make the ecosystem more robust and resistant to censorship.

[rphair]

@aleeusgr your interest in this subject is appreciated & will be welcomed when you have a particular plan or problem statement.

I'll close this draft for now, and when you have a document in proper form (as per CIP-0001 or CIP-9999), with some refined ideas that you're willing to commit to, please either submit them in this PR or open a new one. There's no need to keep this open in the meantime, and closing this will help editors focus on active submissions.

You can check out this section to anticipate what will happen after your submission, to see what editors & reviewers will be looking for:

• https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/wiki/2.-CIPs-for-Reviewers-&-Authors
• https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/wiki/21.-Suggestions-for-CIP-review