CIP-003: Formalize Community Improvement Plans (CIPs)#8
Open
thebalaa wants to merge 7 commits into
Open
Conversation
3 tasks
- 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
requested changes
Mar 9, 2026
thewilloftheshadow
left a comment
thewilloftheshadow
left a comment
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Excited to see this merged and implemented!
Comment on lines
+27
to
+30
| | `cip:draft` | Initial RFCIP or early CIP PR | | ||
| | `cip:discussion` | Under active community review (7-day minimum) | | ||
| | `cip:accepted` | Approved by Admin, PR merged | | ||
| | `cip:rejected` | Not approved | |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| | `cip:draft` | Initial RFCIP or early CIP PR | | |
| | `cip:discussion` | Under active community review (7-day minimum) | | |
| | `cip:accepted` | Approved by Admin, PR merged | | |
| | `cip:rejected` | Not approved | | |
| | `CIP Status: Draft` | Initial RFCIP or early CIP PR | | |
| | `CIP Status: Discussion` | Under active community review (7-day minimum) | | |
| | `CIP Status: Accepted` | Approved by Admin, PR merged | | |
| | `CIP Status: Rejected` | Not approved | |
For human-used labels, I like having this format
Comment on lines
+36
to
+39
| | `cip:governance` | Rules, policies, processes | | ||
| | `cip:structural` | Channels, roles, team changes | | ||
| | `cip:tooling` | Bots, automation, integrations | | ||
| | `cip:events` | Programs, activities, community events | |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| | `cip:governance` | Rules, policies, processes | | |
| | `cip:structural` | Channels, roles, team changes | | |
| | `cip:tooling` | Bots, automation, integrations | | |
| | `cip:events` | Programs, activities, community events | | |
| | `CIP Type: Governance` | Rules, policies, processes | | |
| | `CIP Type: Structural` | Channels, roles, team changes | | |
| | `CIP Type: Tooling` | Bots, automation, integrations | | |
| | `CIP Type: Events` | Programs, activities, community events | | |
| | `CIP Type: Other` | Anything that doesn't fit in another category | |
For human-used labels, I like having this format
|
|
||
| 1. **Pitch:** Open an [RFCIP issue](https://github.com/openclaw/community/issues/new?template=rfcip.yml) describing the problem and your proposed direction. | ||
| 2. **Champion:** Staff reviews the RFCIP and assigns a champion (staff sponsor and advocate). The champion assigns the next available CIP number. | ||
| 3. **Draft:** Once greenlit, open a pull request adding `rfcs/XXXX-slug.md` (where `XXXX` is the PR number). Use [`0003-rfcip-template.md`](0003-rfcip-template.md) as your starting template. |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| 3. **Draft:** Once greenlit, open a pull request adding `rfcs/XXXX-slug.md` (where `XXXX` is the PR number). Use [`0003-rfcip-template.md`](0003-rfcip-template.md) as your starting template. | |
| 3. **Draft:** Once greenlit, open a pull request adding `rfcs/XXXX-slug.md` (where `XXXX` is the PR number). Use [`XXXX-cip-blank-template.md`](XXXX-cip-blank-template.md) as your starting template. |
Comment on lines
+295
to
+297
| ## AI Disclosure | ||
|
|
||
| AI tools (Claude) were used as a collaborative partner in designing the CIP process structure, drafting this document, and generating the RFCIP issue template. All design decisions were made by the author through a structured questionnaire process. |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Big fan of this section, thank you
| ## Implementation Plan | ||
|
|
||
| 1. **Merge this CIP** into the `rfcs/` directory as the foundational process document. | ||
| 2. **Create GitHub labels**: `cip:draft`, `cip:discussion`, `cip:accepted`, `cip:rejected`, `cip:governance`, `cip:structural`, `cip:tooling`, `cip:events`. |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would prefer a different format for these, I noted that on the rfcs/README.md file
Comment on lines
+119
to
+168
| ### Process Flow | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| Community member | ||
| │ | ||
| ▼ | ||
| ┌─────────────┐ | ||
| │ Open RFCIP │ ◀── GitHub issue using RFCIP template | ||
| │ issue │ | ||
| └──────┬──────┘ | ||
| │ | ||
| ▼ | ||
| ┌─────────────┐ | ||
| │ Staff review│ ◀── Staff evaluates the pitch | ||
| │ + assign │ | ||
| │ champion │ | ||
| └──────┬──────┘ | ||
| │ | ||
| ▼ | ||
| ┌─────────────┐ | ||
| │ Champion │ ◀── Champion greenlights + assigns CIP number | ||
| │ greenlights │ | ||
| └──────┬──────┘ | ||
| │ | ||
| ▼ | ||
| ┌─────────────┐ | ||
| │ Open CIP PR │ ◀── PR adding rfcs/XXXX-slug.md | ||
| │ (Draft) │ | ||
| └──────┬──────┘ | ||
| │ | ||
| ▼ | ||
| ┌─────────────┐ | ||
| │ Discussion │ ◀── 7-day minimum; GitHub + Discord | ||
| │ period │ | ||
| └──────┬──────┘ | ||
| │ | ||
| ▼ | ||
| ┌─────────────┐ | ||
| │ Admin │ | ||
| │ decision │ | ||
| └──┬──────┬───┘ | ||
| │ │ | ||
| ▼ ▼ | ||
| Accepted Rejected | ||
| (merge) (close + rationale) | ||
| │ | ||
| ▼ | ||
| Tracking issue | ||
| opened | ||
| ``` |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Use mermaid for this!
Comment on lines
+109
to
+111
| ``` | ||
| Draft ──▶ Discussion ──▶ Accepted | ||
| └──▶ Rejected |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Use mermaid for this!
Suggested change
| ``` | |
| Draft ──▶ Discussion ──▶ Accepted | |
| └──▶ Rejected | |
| ```mermaid | |
| flowchart LR | |
| draft([Draft]) --> disc([Discussion]) | |
| disc --> a([Accepted]) | |
| disc --> r([Rejected]) |
flowchart LR
draft([Draft]) --> disc([Discussion])
disc --> a([Accepted])
disc --> r([Rejected])
Comment on lines
+204
to
+222
| ### GitHub Labels | ||
|
|
||
| **Status labels** track lifecycle state: | ||
|
|
||
| | Label | Meaning | | ||
| | ---------------- | -------------------------------------- | | ||
| | `cip:draft` | Initial RFCIP or early CIP PR | | ||
| | `cip:discussion` | Under active community review | | ||
| | `cip:accepted` | Approved by Admin, PR merged | | ||
| | `cip:rejected` | Not approved | | ||
|
|
||
| **Type labels** categorize proposals: | ||
|
|
||
| | Label | Meaning | | ||
| | ----------------- | ------------------------------------- | | ||
| | `cip:governance` | Rules, policies, processes | | ||
| | `cip:structural` | Channels, roles, team changes | | ||
| | `cip:tooling` | Bots, automation, integrations | | ||
| | `cip:events` | Programs, activities, community events| |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Added preferred label names on rfc/README.md
clawsweeper
Bot
added
rating: 🧂 unranked krab
|
Codex review: needs real behavior proof before merge. Workflow note: Future ClawSweeper reviews update this same comment in place. How this review workflow works
Summary Reproducibility: not applicable. as a runtime bug, but the PR defects are high-confidence from source inspection: the proposed files contain ASCII diagrams where Mermaid is required and inconsistent CIP numbering/template instructions. PR rating Rank-up moves:
What the crustacean ranks mean
Shiny media proof means a screenshot, video, or linked artifact directly shows the changed behavior. Runtime, network, CSP, and security claims still need visible diagnostics. Real behavior proof Risk before merge
Maintainer options:
Next step before merge Security Review findings
Review detailsBest possible solution: Revise this PR so the process docs use Mermaid diagrams, the numbering and starter-template instructions are consistent, label/process choices match maintainer direction, and the RFCIP issue form is shown rendering correctly before landing it as the implementation path for the related community-improvement request. Do we have a high-confidence way to reproduce the issue? Not applicable as a runtime bug, but the PR defects are high-confidence from source inspection: the proposed files contain ASCII diagrams where Mermaid is required and inconsistent CIP numbering/template instructions. Is this the best way to solve the issue? No as proposed; the broad CIP process may be useful, but the narrow maintainable path is to fix the Mermaid and guidance issues, then have maintainers settle the governance label/process choices before merge. Label changes:
Label justifications:
Full review comments:
Overall correctness: patch is incorrect What I checked:
Likely related people:
Codex review notes: model gpt-5.5, reasoning high; reviewed against bd2eda8e70c3. |
|
ClawSweeper PR egg 🎁 Pass real behavior proof to wake the egg and unlock a hatchable treat. Where did the egg go?
|
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.