Active defining/rethinking path to active

[Ryun1]

CIP-001 describes here how and when a CIP is to be marked active.

In the past, some CIP's where given the 'Active' status without meeting this criteria. The risk here is that implementors of standards assume something is stable, where this might not be the case. And this is to be expected, since in development, it is often the case that the final product does not match the initial design, this because testing and bug chasing follows only after implementation.

How do we define active in an ecosystem where there are multiple implementations? (i.e. multiple nodes)

[Ryun1]

How do we define active in an ecosystem where there are multiple implementations?

Im not sure we can,
unless a implementation explicitly signals their interest being included in the active status,

[Ryun1]

Dependent on category - is the CIP a part of the core Node?

Do some category require specific paths to active?

[perturbing]

I've been reflecting on this issue and believe we do not need to rephrase or change CIP-0001. The main challenge seems to lie in how we, as CIP editors, approach marking proposals as active.

To address this, I propose adopting a more critical and evidence-based approach. For example:

• How stable is the CIP in question?
• Is there tangible evidence of stability, such as implementation success or community adoption?

A relevant case is CIP-1694, which was marked active despite mainnet not yet passing the Plomin hardfork. According to CIP-0001:

For changes to the Cardano protocol, a CIP becomes 'Active' by being live on the Cardano mainnet;

This suggests it should not yet be active. However, one could argue that it is production-ready, as the node for the hardfork has been released—highlighting that this is not an exact science.

To improve consistency, I suggest that any status change be accompanied by clear, criteria-based arguments measured against the wording of CIP-0001. This will enhance transparency, align our decisions with intended standards, and encourage thoughtful deliberation.

Note that after the Plomin hardfork, we will be able to mark some CIP's active (the new bitwise and ripemd builtins for example).

[rphair]

@perturbing I agree 100% with #927 (comment). Since CIP-0001 is not inaccurate as it is now, I suggest we create another Wiki page in this section (a new outline point 302: https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/wiki/3.-CIPs-for-Editors

... with the editorial decision-making process behind assigning Active status, expressed as concisely as possible from what's been written above + anything further agreed upon here before closing this issue.

[rphair]

p.s. following discussion in the last hour's CIP meeting: I will create, once we can see that discussion above has stabilised, a digest of the points in this issue in a new Wiki page as named above. This will be a living document that all editors can use & update whenever the application of Active status is subject to any of the above uncertainties.