What is the current process for adding new contracts to OpenZeppelin?

[Coinmonks]

Q- What is the current process for deciding what will get added to the open-zeppelin library.

If there is a process, then it is fantastic. Otherwise, I am proposing one.

• Create a public poll with some most popular ideas

Add an "Other option" too. (Most common will made the poll list, and this process will continue).

Ask "Why they Need it" (Understanding trend and use cases)

Ask their Name and Email Id. (Notify these people once implemented)

Pin this poll on different social channels.

Example- https://buddies2705.typeform.com/to/BNZikm (Question can be improved, and new questions can be added).

[abcoathup]

Hi @Coinmonks Thanks for asking about this. I renamed the topic slightly.

The process is currently informal (as far as I know), so feedback on how to improve and formalize is awesome. Let me know what you think of the below:

Polls in the forum could be good to gauge sentiment to help with community needs/priorities for multiple proposals. We could then link to this from social media to get as broad an input as possible.

Proposing an addition in the forum is probably the best place to start, so there can be discussion in the community.

The following is good to provide context in the proposal forum topic (from @martriay in HTLC proposal):

this contract is for
who <have the following problem/need>
this implementation
that provides
unlike <alternative contract / implementation / competition>
this solution

Examples in use in the wild are great to provide.
Also MIT licence compatible implementations would be helpful if there is interest in adding into OpenZeppelin.

For EIPs, non-final EIPs could potentially be added to drafts (as was the case for ERC777) though the preference is likely to be EIPs nearing finalization.

Some recent proposals in the forums include:

Suggestion to include Hashed Timelock Contract

I would like to propose to include a Hashed Timelock Contract (HTLC) for ERC20 tokens and one for ERC721 tokens in OpenZeppelin, to support atomic swaps between these types of tokens. Sample implementations can be found here https://github.com/kaleido-io/token-sample-htlc (which is forked and enhanced from Chris Hatch). this contract is for consumers or organizations who want to trade tokens but do not want to use a 3rd party centralized component that they must trust this implementation u…

ERC1003, ERC827: ERC20 extensions for sending tokens to smart contracts

I wish to propose ERC1003 to be included into OpenZeppelin-solidity library. Pros: no checks required on client side: just get tokens from msg.sender and spend as arguments describe full compatibility with ERC20 approve+transferFrom mechanism, even compatible with some existing smart contracts including DEXes Cons: any tokens mistakenly sent to the ERC1003-compatible smart contract helper contract became available for everyone to be stolen. Example Implementation: import "openzeppelin-so…

Add support for ERC721 token URI concatenation of base token URI and tokenID

Current ERC721 minting with token URI requires specifying the URI per token. To reduce gas cost, the OpenSea example uses concatenation of a base token URI and the tokenID. (https://github.com/ProjectOpenSea/opensea-creatures/blob/master/contracts/TradeableERC721Token.sol) I used this concatenation on BlockHorses. https://github.com/blockhorses/BlockHorses/blob/master/contracts/BlockHorses.sol https://github.com/blockhorses/BlockHorses/blob/master/contracts/Strings.sol function tokenURI(u…

[Coinmonks]

Yes, Forum is a good start to deep dive into every single option we will put in Polls. Anyone have something new indicate them to create a topic on the Zeppelin forum with the template

@abcoathup

this contract is for
who <have the following problem/need>
this implementation
that provides
unlike <alternative contract / implementation / competition>
this solution

this will automatically start a discussion around it and then we can push this into the loop.

I think we can create a category or subcategory to organize these proposals and ask people to use this to propose Contracts.

One more thing, you can push these proposals through different social media to increase discussions around it.

[frangio]

@Coinmonks

I think we can create a category or subcategory to organize these proposals and ask people to use this to propose Contracts.

Use #openzeppelin for this! It's the category for discussing what development of the library (as opposed to usage, which goes itn #support:openzeppelin).