-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 24
Conversation
- Fully specified meta-CIP documenting the CIP process - RFCIP issue template for lightweight pitches - Blank CIP template for future authors - Process guide (rfcs/README.md) - Updated issue template config with label reference
CIP numbers are now sequential, manually assigned by the champion when the RFCIP is greenlit. This decouples naming from GitHub infrastructure and gives the champion explicit responsibility for number assignment.
@thewilloftheshadow
thewilloftheshadow
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Excited to see this merged and implemented!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For human-used labels, I like having this format
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For human-used labels, I like having this format
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Big fan of this section, thank you
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Would prefer a different format for these, I noted that on the rfcs/README.md file
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Use mermaid for this!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Use mermaid for this!
flowchart LR
draft([Draft]) --> disc([Discussion])
disc --> a([Accepted])
disc --> r([Rejected])
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Added preferred label names on rfc/README.md
Thanks for the context here. I swept through the related work, and this is now duplicate or superseded.
The central CIP/RFCIP workflow is absent from current main and has supportive repository-member feedback, so this PR remains useful; however, it is not merge-ready because it conflicts with the Mermaid-only repository policy, contains contradictory draft instructions, lacks real rendered proof, and needs explicit approval for the permanent governance roles it creates.
Canonical path: Close this stale PR. The latest review rated it F, the branch still lacks merge-ready proof, and there has been no human follow-up after the durable review.
So I’m closing this here because the remaining work is already tracked in the canonical issue.
Review details
Best possible solution:
Close this stale PR. The latest review rated it F, the branch still lacks merge-ready proof, and there has been no human follow-up after the durable review.
Do we have a high-confidence way to reproduce the issue?
Not applicable; this PR proposes a new governance and contributor-intake workflow rather than fixing an existing reproducible defect. The branch defects are directly verifiable from the proposed Markdown and issue-form source.
Is this the best way to solve the issue?
No, not in its current form; the RFCIP/CIP separation is a plausible maintainable direction, but the safe solution must first reconcile repository diagram policy, numbering and template instructions, label setup, and governance authority.
Security review:
Security review cleared: The diff adds Markdown and a GitHub issue form without executable workflows, dependencies, permissions, secrets handling, downloaded artifacts, or third-party code execution.
AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.
What I checked:
- stale F-rated PR: PR was opened 2026年03月08日T04:57:42Z, is older than 60 days, and the latest review rated it
F. - proof blocker: real behavior proof is
missingand proof tier isF, so this branch is not merge-ready without contributor follow-up. - no human follow-up: live comments and timeline hydrated by apply contain no non-automation activity after the ClawSweeper review.
Likely related people:
- thewilloftheshadow: They authored the existing issue-template system as Shadow, have the strongest history on the central files, and supplied detailed review decisions for this proposal. (role: reviewer and issue-template feature owner; confidence: high; commits: 85dd57f086aa, 9054aef57b7f, 21345fb; files:
.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml,.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/policy-change.yml,.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/rules-change.yml) - Peter Steinberger: Recent commits maintain the repository's public documentation and community forms surface, making him a plausible secondary routing candidate for a repository-wide process. (role: recent adjacent contributor; confidence: medium; commits: 7165793a41e1, cc84db243105; files:
README.md,appeals-and-reports.md)
Codex review notes: reasoning high; reviewed against 7165793a41e1.
ClawSweeper PR egg
🎁 Pass real behavior proof to wake the egg and unlock a hatchable treat.
Where did the egg go?
- The egg game starts only after the PR passes the real-behavior proof check.
- Before that, no creature or rarity is rolled. The treat waits for real proof.
- This is still just collectible flavor: proof affects review readiness, not creature quality.
Summary
CIP-003 is the CIP template itself — a meta-proposal that defines the standard format all future Community Improvement Plans must follow. It establishes:
What it defines
and supersession chain.
Why it matters
CIP-003 is the foundational document of the CIP process. Every future community improvement — whether governance, structural, tooling, or events — will be written against this template. It ensures proposals are
consistently structured, thoroughly considered, and traceable from initial pitch (RFCIP issue) through acceptance and implementation.
This PR was authored with the assistance of Pi coding agent and a custom exploration workbench.
Author accepts responsibility for the qulity of contents herein.