Standardizing Proposals Structure

[JonathanErlich]

I suggest standardizing the proposals structure to make them more readable (and also starting to name and number them - PowerPool Improvement Proposal (PIP) could work).

I think what YFI and CRV have implemented works pretty well.

Here’s the structure YFI uses:

Summary:

Simply describe the outcome the proposed change intends to achieve. This should be non-technical and accessible to a casual community member.

Abstract:

A short (~200 word) description of the proposed change, the abstract should clearly describe the proposed change. This is what will be done if the YIP is implemented.

Motivation:

This is the problem statement. This is the why of the YIP. It should clearly explain why the current state of the protocol is inadequate.

Specification:

This is a high level overview of how the YIP will solve the problem. The overview should clearly describe how the new feature will be implemented.

For:

Against:

Poll:

[DrGonzo]

pretty neat structure, I think we need to pin that thread

Or include this structure in the post:

About the Proposals category

(Replace this first paragraph with a brief description of your new category. This guidance will appear in the category selection area, so try to keep it below 200 characters.) Use the following paragraphs for a longer description, or to establish category guidelines or rules: Why should people use this category? What is it for? How exactly is this different than the other categories we already have? What should topics in this category generally contain? Do we need this category? Can…

[Zero]

Wow. Really decent.

Strongly agree.