Proposal: Formalize Judging Improvement Process

[Evert0x]

Sherlock Judging Improvement Proposals (SJIP)

The improvement process of the judging guidelines can benefit from a clear structure and community engagement.

For that reason, I propose to introduce Sherlock Judging Improvement Proposals (SJIP)

This new process allows any community member to come in and take the lead on a rule change.

This post provides an understanding of the creation process and lifecycle of a SJIP.

Creating a SJIP

A successful SJIP focuses on a single improvement.

Each SJIP has the following parts:

• Description - Short (one sentence) description of the SJIP
• PR - A link to a PR located in this repo https://github.com/sherlock-protocol/sherlock-v2-docs
• Rationale - The rationale fleshes out the improvement by describing what motivates the change and why particular sentences and words are used. It should also discuss important objections or concerns raised during the discussion around the SJIP.
• Discussions - Links to one or more relevant issue discussions on a finalized contest

SJIP lifecycle

Each SJIP starts in a Draft status.

If the maintainer deems the SJIP worthy of discussion, they will move the status to Review; otherwise, they will lock the SJIP conversation and assign the Excluded status.

After a discussion, the status moves from Review to Last Call. This starts a seven-day period during which anyone can oppose the change discussed. The maintainer can assign the status Review if the opposing arguments show that the change needs more discussion.

When the seven-day period ends, the maintainer will merge the PR into the next batch, assign a batch number, and change the status to Final.

Each batch update gets into voting on the 2nd Monday of each month using https://snapshot.org/#/sherlockdao.eth

Maintainers

The current maintainers are

• Evert Kors (Github: evert0x)

Github Discussion Post Format

title: "SJIP:"
labels: ["Draft"]
body:
  - type: input
    id: description
    attributes:
      label: Description
      description: Short description about the SJIP
      placeholder: "Example: clarify hierarchy of truth"
    validations:
      required: true
  - type: input
    id: pr
    attributes:
      label: Judging Guidelines PR
      description: A link to a PR located in this repo https://github.com/sherlock-protocol/sherlock-v2-docs
    validations:
      required: true
  - type: textarea
    id: rationale
    attributes:
      label: Rationale
      description: What motivated the design and why particular design decisions were made.
    validations:
      required: true
  - type: textarea
    id: discussions
    attributes:
      label: Relevant Issue Discussions
      description: Provide a link to 1 or more relevant issue discussions on a finalized contest
    validations:
      required: true

[IllIllI000]

For the Relevant Issue Discussions, can a summary be provided on why the link is relevant (e.g. what the issue boiled down to), and how and why the eventual scoring of the issue would change with the new rule? For example, for this rule change, it's pretty clear what's being altered with the change in the commit, but when trying to read through each of the links, it's very time-consuming to get the full context of the issue, and how the old rule was insufficient, and what changes for the new rule. It feels like we're losing a lot of nuance that's only in the minds of the judge and the primary participant by only having a link. For some of the other SJIPs, it wasn't even clear whether the new rule was intending to reverse or sustain the original ruling.