---
# System prepended metadata

title: The MIPs Framework

---

# The MIPs Framework

## Issues with it

- MIPs and subproposals are both MIPs. Terminology is ambiguous
    - This can be problematic: MIPs can be amended---does this mean that subproposals can be amended? That's not what MIP4 was originally supposed to do, according to LFW
- Period lengths for MIPs and subproposals can *de facto* be defined by authors. Can they be defined by authors *de jure* though? This is not clear
- Period lengths have a maximum length of one month for the Feedback Period and one week for the Frozen Period, as per MIP2. There is no minimum length
  - Parenthetically, this maximum length is (or is it the case that it merely *has* been on a couple of occasions?) longer in practice for technical MIPs: it is/has been three months
- There is no clear criterion for when to mark MIP2 as obsolete
  - Even if there were such a criterion, would it be good to have the period lengths defined by MIP0 (and currently overriden by MIP2) take effect? These overriden periods are considerably longer than the current ones, with the MIP0-defined period lengths being three months for the Feedback Period and one month for the Frozen Period. Arguably this is too long for the cryptosphere. Furthermore, proposals barely get any attention after one week from their posting on the forum. Even if the lengths were reasonable for the cryptosphere, it will not make much of a difference if people are not better incentivized to engage with proposals
  - It seems to me that:  
    - MIP2 should be marked as obsolete or a criterion should be defined for the conditions for its obsolescence, possibly an assessing process component that involves off-chain and on-chain voting... 
      - Meh: marking it as obsolete seems better
    - MIP0's period lengths should be made to be the same as in MIP2 
    - MIP0 should define a minimum period length, possibly variable per type of proposal---maybe we're talking about its *impact*? That sounds sensical
    - If we introduce impact, MIP amendments should have variable period lengths that depend on the impact category of to-be-amended MIPs.
      - Should we keep the current MIP4 distinction between MIPs younger/older than three months?
    - When proposals belong to multiple impact categories, their period lengths should be those of the most morose impact category
  
  | Impact               | Feedback Period | Frozen Period |
  | -------------------- | --------------- | ------------- |
  | Budgeting / Payments |                 |               |
  | Technical            |                 |               |
  | Collateral           |                 |               |
- PaperImperium´s dissatisfied with the current amending process---specifically with its template that requires readers to go to GitHub to see the PR with the amendments. He's noticed that feedback was killed after the point when his MIP4c2 subproposal got revised to meet the template. I was afraid that would happen (and that's the reason I [didn't make any modifications to it](https://forum.makerdao.com/t/mip4c2-sp15-core-unit-offboarding-process-amendments/12920/17))
    - We should revise this process
