💡 Voting rationale should be CIP-136 compliant

[bosko-m]

Is there new design needed?

No

What?

Voting rationale needs to be added and rendered according to CIP-136.

Why?

To be able to participate properly in the voting and provide rationale.

How?

Adjust view and add sequence to incorporate CIP-136 fields.

(Optional) User Story with acceptance criteria

No response

[Kale98]

rationale-example-1.json
rationale-example-2.json

Do these two examples comply with the CIP:136 standard?

Example rationale-example-2.json contains fields:

• body.summary
• body.precedentDiscussion
• body.counterargumentDiscussion
• body.conclusion

We currently cannot fill in these fields because we do not have input fields for them on FE.
To adopt the example rationale-example-2.json we would have to change the design in terms of adding the above input fields to the FE.

The example rationale-example-1.json does not require design changes (and FE changes).

[bosko-m]

@Kale98 I will make sure to provide you the precise explanation on CIP-136 fields.

[bosko-m]

@Kale98 Here are the details on CIP-136:
https://github.com/Ryun1/CIPs/blob/governance-metadata-cc-rationale/CIP-0136/README.md#specification
Let me know if you have any questions.

[rogankool]

@bosko-m

After reviewing the CIP-136, the proposed solution is to update the 'Add Rationale' modal in Latest Updates > Governance Actions as follows:

• Rename 'Title' field to 'Summary' and expand it to fit 3 rows of text (on the UI), allowing up to 200 characters, aligning with the CIP-136 Summary field.
• Rename 'Rationale' field to 'Statement' (or 'Rationale Statement') and remove the 500-character limit to match CIP-136's rationaleStatement field.

Please confirm so I can relay to the team.

[bosko-m]

@rogankool Confirmed.
Note: Use Rationale Statement for the rationale text.

[rogankool]

@bosko-m @Thomas-Upfield Here's the latest design for adding Rationale - in line with the CIP-136 field definitions