CIP-0007 | Adjust preamble and structure w.r.t CIP-0001

[rphair]

Fixes #532.

@KtorZ please check the Path to Active is OK here is OK before I might also apply the same Acceptance Criteria in #533 & #535.

[rphair]

@KtorZ just to be sure I follow a correct process for the remaining RSS proposals: why does your last suggested change place:

The new equation is implemented in the ledger and enacted through a hard-fork.

(in Acceptance Criteria) before

Agreement by the Ledger team ... on changes to rewards & incentives.

(in Implementation Plan)? I must be missing something, but mustn't the agreement to make the change precede the actual implementation? And why in this particular case have we placed the implementation of the new rewards equation in the Acceptance criteria?

[KtorZ]

Acceptance criteria is what indicates how a CIP moves from proposed to active, so almost everytime, it comes AFTER the implementation. Acceptance criteria isn't a signal for the implementation to start; rather, it signals that a CIP is actually "final". It's been implemented and there are observable metrics that can vouch for it.

Hence why most ledger CIPs end up with "implemented in the ledger and enacted through hard-fork" as acceptance criteria. Same for Plutus changes, acceptance criteria usually states that there's a new plutus version that include the new features.

The implementation plan relates to how we get from proposed to active; hence, in my opinion, part of the plan is indeed to get approval from the relevant teams / experts (which is kind of implicit to the CIP process and the registered categories).

[rphair]

@KtorZ thanks for the confirmation... I was just getting around to that understanding from going back & reading CIP-0001 in the last half-hour. I had been under the false impression that acceptance would have to proceed implementation so that these two sections would be in roughly chronological order: I can see now that they can proceed in parallel and often in reverse order. 👌

[Ryun1]

LGTM 🤓