Adding 1694.io governance tooling

[profd2004]

Checklist

• I have read the How to Contribute.
• I have read the Showcase Requirements
• I have run yarn build after adding my changes without getting any errors.
• I have not committed any changes to yarn.lock (or have removed these changes).

Showcase addition

• Title: 1694.io
• Description: 1694.io is an open source zero click place to read CIP 1694. 1694.io is also place to see DRep timeline (pool.pm for drep), and for DRep to claim their profiles and engage with their delegators. Project is maintained by the Lido Nation crew.
• Website: https://www.1694.io
• Source: https://github.com/IntersectMBO/drep-campaign-platform
• Tags:
  • analytics
  • explorer
  • educational
  • opensource
  • governance

[rphair]

There is indeed an brilliant & useful presentation on https://www.1694.io, but I believe it would be better introduced with an early paragraph on this page: https://developers.cardano.org/docs/governance/cardano-governance/governance-model

... rather than a Showcase item. Since @Ryun1 @Hornan7 @thenic95 have worked with this material since the beginning I would also invite their input about how an introduction & link to 1694.io could be worked into this existing Dev Portal page: given that it covers the same subjects.

[rphair]

A separate comment for discussion: I think the original intent of this PR - to add the "governance tooling" to the Showcase portfolio - could be satisfied if there were a landing page appropriate specifically to this tooling.

Otherwise, all we see upon landing on the currently suggested web site (https://www.1694.io) is a deep discourse on CIP-1694 after a button at the top inviting readers to "Connect Wallet" without explaining why they should do that or what might happen after they do.

[katomm]

I second what @rphair wrote. Tag wise I suggest to go only with "governance" and "open source". It does not seem to fit what users expect for explorers or analytics unless I missed something no the page.

[profd2004]

I second what @rphair wrote. Tag wise I suggest to go only with "governance" and "open source". It does not seem to fit what users expect for explorers or analytics unless I missed something no the page.

Explorer and analytics in the sense that you both explore dreps and see current 5 pieces of analytics on this page: https://www.1694.io/en/dreps/list

Will update the pr to make the above page the landing page... Should we still reduce the tags to 'governance' and 'open source'?

[rphair]

At the top bar, you can see that the explorer tag is for Block Explorer, and only contains blockchain explorers: https://developers.cardano.org/showcase/?tags=explorer

analytics (https://developers.cardano.org/showcase/?tags=analytics) indicates data aggregation, and simply listing the dReps with a "timeline" is too thin to really be considered aggregation (i.e. a list + another list). Your Lido Nation is a better example of an aggregator since it collates data across multiple proposals, funds, authors, etc.

So yes I would recommend removing these 2 tags as @katomm suggested. 🙏

[Hornan7]

I really love the way CIP-1694 is presented on this page—it’s clear and well-structured, and I think it will be a great addition to the governance model section of the developer portal page.

I did notice a couple of things that might be worth checking:

• The introductory paragraph of the abstract appears twice at the beginning of the page.
• In the second column, where the governance actions are listed by type, the numbering goes from 1 to 11, but it seems like it should be numbered from 1 to 7, including the sub-points (a, b, c, d) under governance action type 5 (Protocol parameter changes), for example.

These are minor points and might be outside the main scope of this PR, but I thought I’d mention them. Additionally, it might be helpful to add the revision number of the original file from the CIP repository at the bottom of the page, so readers can easily check if it’s up to date in case any further changes occur. (ex: Revision: d8fdbc4 )

Another constructive comment: I hope the issue with the wrong hashing of the DRep metadata files has been solved. If not, I’d be happy to lend a hand with that if needed.

Darlington is very well known in the community for delivering great documentation and for properly updating and fixing any possible issues that people report to them. Which is why, I strongly encourage moving forward with this PR!

[rphair]

In light of @Hornan7's #1360 (comment), I'll remove the inapplicable analytics tag so we can move on with consideration & merge of this submission.

I still think it should also be linked from the main governance content as I suggested on #1360 (review) but if @profd2004 is not adding it here then we can consider this as a separate proposition with another PR (I'll put this on my TODO for when the current architectural questions about the Dev Portal are answered).

Darlington, this is a lot of content for people to have to re-read for potential changes any time a change is suspected. If you want this tool to be used as a serious reference then you should add the commit hash as @Hornan7 suggests.

I agree that @profd2004 can be trusted to resolve the remaining issues pointed out with the landing page content. Personally (as already stated in #1360 (comment)) I would never click on a button that said Connect Wallet unless I knew what would happen afterward: and therefore I still think that either

1. a phrase should be added on or around that button: Connect Wallet to (do X, Y, Z, ...), or
2. the landing page should be changed to an FAQ explaining how the "tool" component is used.

However the purpose of Dev Portal review is not to redesign the sites as we would design them so I'm going to approve this (without the extraneous tags) and leave the rest of the suggested improvements to Darlington.

[katomm]

FYI: the project has an empty licence file on https://github.com/IntersectMBO/drep-campaign-platform?tab=License-1-ov-file#readme

[thenic95]

Due to the missing license in the repo, I would recommend only merging it with the tags governance and educational

[rphair]

@profd2004 it looks like we're ready to merge this if & when you can fix #1360 (comment).

I also think it would be nice if you would at least respond about #1360 (review) even if you don't plan on adopting any of those suggestions.