* Remove redundancy between the list of reasons to reject an update and
the "Specification of Status Workflow" section, and move things to the
right section.
* Define "Released".
* Remove use of "proposed" (which was not intended to be the same as the
status "Proposed").
* Add another reason to reject an update: it violates a conformance
requirement of any Active Process ZIP (including this ZIP);
* Clarify that ZIP stubs, and only ZIP stubs, MUST use Status: Reserved;
* Clarify when a Released ZIP can be changed to a non-Released status;
* Require that changes in status other than Draft <-> Withdrawn in
general need consensus among ZIP Editors, and eliminate resulting
redundancies. This is technically a strengthened requirement for
changes other than to Proposed or Rejected, but reflects existing
practice.
* Clarify how the Owners of a ZIP change it to Withdrawn.
* Active can now only be reached from Proposed. Strengthen the
requirements for rough consensus in this case to say that the ZIP
has been complete for at least a month and Proposed for at least
a week. This will impose a bit more overhead but I think it's
necessary; previously, a Process or Informational ZIP could have
gone directly from Draft to Active without sufficient notice.
* Require that a Consensus ZIP has an implementation merged into at
least one consensus node codebase (currently zcashd and/or zebra)
before it is moved to Implemented, and make the existing discussion
of timing relative to a network upgrade apply only to Consensus ZIPs;
* Require that if a non-editorial update is made to an Obsolete or
Withdrawn ZIP, its status MUST be changed appropriately.
* Allow a status transition from Implemented to Obsolete, and clarify
when transitions to Obsolete occur.
* Add a responsibility for the ZIP Secretary to share significant
changes in ZIP status, in particular progression of a ZIP to Proposed,
on the Community Forum.
Signed-off-by: Daira Emma Hopwood <daira@jacaranda.org>
(see https://rms-open-letter.github.io/appendix), and that document's stance on pronouns.
In particular, although the document has changed since the open letter's reference to it, its
current version says that gender-neutral pronouns "don't conflict with any possible gender
identity". That is incorrect, and not compatible with our CoC. Always use a person's stated
pronouns if they are known; use gender-neutral pronouns only when the correct ones are unknown
or when not referring to a specific person.
Besides the pronoun issue and the association with RMS, a universal exhortation to "assume good
faith" is verging on tone-policing when applied to marginalized communities. In any case,
ZIP 0 is not about that topic and the link is out-of-place.
Signed-off-by: Daira Hopwood <daira@jacaranda.org>
Deirdre Connolly will now be representing the Foundation as ZIP Editor. Thanks to George for all his previous input!
Author: Josh Cincinnati <acityinohio@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: Daira Hopwood <daira@jacaranda.org>
Daira-Emma Hopwood
teor
str4d
Deirdre Connolly
Deirdre Connolly
Josh Cincinnati