feat(docs): proposal template drafting

[stevenj]

Description

Thanks for contributing to the project!
Please fill out this template to help us review your changes.

Related Issue(s)

List the issue numbers related to this pull request.

e.g., Closes #1, Resolves #1 Fixes #1

Description of Changes

Provide a clear and concise description of what the pull request changes.

Breaking Changes

Describe any breaking changes and the impact.

Screenshots

If applicable, add screenshots to help explain your changes.

Related Pull Requests

If applicable, list any related pull requests.

e.g., #1, #1

Please confirm the following checks

• My code follows the style guidelines of this project
• I have performed a self-review of my code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• My changes generate no new warnings
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
• Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream module

[github-actions]

✅ Test Report | ${\color{lightgreen}Pass: 333/333}$ | ${\color{red}Fail: 0/333}$ |

[github-actions]

✅ Test Report | ${\color{lightgreen}Pass: 333/333}$ | ${\color{red}Fail: 0/333}$ |

[github-actions]

✅ Test Report | ${\color{lightgreen}Pass: 333/333}$ | ${\color{red}Fail: 0/333}$ |

[github-actions]

✅ Test Report | ${\color{lightgreen}Pass: 333/333}$ | ${\color{red}Fail: 0/333}$ |

[github-actions]

✅ Test Report | ${\color{lightgreen}Pass: 333/333}$ | ${\color{red}Fail: 0/333}$ |

[github-actions]

✅ Test Report | ${\color{lightgreen}Pass: 333/333}$ | ${\color{red}Fail: 0/333}$ |

[github-actions]

✅ Test Report | ${\color{lightgreen}Pass: 333/333}$ | ${\color{red}Fail: 0/333}$ |

[github-actions]

✅ Test Report | ${\color{lightgreen}Pass: 333/333}$ | ${\color{red}Fail: 0/333}$ |

[github-actions]

✅ Test Report | ${\color{lightgreen}Pass: 333/333}$ | ${\color{red}Fail: 0/333}$ |

[github-actions]

✅ Test Report | ${\color{lightgreen}Pass: 334/334}$ | ${\color{red}Fail: 0/334}$ |

[github-actions]

✅ Test Report | ${\color{lightgreen}Pass: 334/334}$ | ${\color{red}Fail: 0/334}$ |

[github-actions]

✅ Test Report | ${\color{lightgreen}Pass: 334/334}$ | ${\color{red}Fail: 0/334}$ |

[github-actions]

✅ Test Report | ${\color{lightgreen}Pass: 334/334}$ | ${\color{red}Fail: 0/334}$ |

[github-actions]

✅ Test Report | ${\color{lightgreen}Pass: 334/334}$ | ${\color{red}Fail: 0/334}$ |

[minikin]

@stevenj @nathanbogale

I'd like to suggest using x-order extension properties to handle UI element ordering.
This approach provides explicit ordering control while maintaining schema clarity.

Instead of relying on object property order (which is not guaranteed by the specification), we can add x-order arrays at levels where ordering is critical:

{
  "properties": {
    "setup": {
      "properties": {
        "title": { ... },
        "proposer": { ... }
      },
      "x-order": ["title", "proposer"]
    }
  },
  "x-order": ["setup", "summary", "horizons", "details", "milestones", "pitch", "agreements"]
}

Benefits:

• Explicit ordering control without schema restructuring
• Follows JSON Schema extension conventions
• Can be added only where needed
• Easy to implement in Flutter with fallback behavior

Some additional details about implementing the x-order approach:

1. Root Level Ordering

{
  "x-order": ["setup", "summary", "horizons", "details", "milestones", "pitch", "agreements"],
  "properties": { ... }
}

2. Section Level Ordering

{
  "setup": {
    "x-order": ["title", "proposer"],
    "properties": {
      "title": { ... },
      "proposer": { ... }
    }
  }
}

3. Nested Section Ordering

{
  "proposer": {
    "x-order": ["applicant", "type", "coproposers"],
    "properties": {
      "applicant": { ... },
      "type": { ... },
      "coproposers": { ... }
    }
  }
}

4. Complex Section Example

{
  "summary": {
    "x-order": [
      "budget",
      "time",
      "translation",
      "problem",
      "solution",
      "supportingLinks",
      "dependencies",
      "open_source"
    ],
    "properties": {
      "budget": {
        "x-order": ["requestedFunds"],
        "properties": { ... }
      },
      "time": {
        "x-order": ["duration"],
        "properties": { ... }
      }
    }
  }
}

5. Array Items Ordering (for repeatable sections)

{
  "dependencies": {
    "details": {
      "items": {
        "x-order": ["name", "type", "description", "mitigationPlan"],
        "properties": { ... }
      }
    }
  }
}

6. Conditional Sections

{
  "translation": {
    "x-order": ["isTranslated", "originalLanguage", "translationNotes"],
    "properties": { ... },
    "dependencies": {
      "originalLanguage": ["isTranslated"],
      "translationNotes": ["isTranslated"]
    }
  }
}

[LynxLynxx]

should this be 1024?

[LynxLynxx]

how this items object is working?

[github-actions]

✅ Test Report | ${\color{lightgreen}Pass: 334/334}$ | ${\color{red}Fail: 0/334}$ |

[github-actions]

✅ Test Report | ${\color{lightgreen}Pass: 334/334}$ | ${\color{red}Fail: 0/334}$ |

[neil-iohk]

JsonSchema has structuring tags one of which is $def, should that be used instead of "definitions" for the purpose of defining reusable structures
https://json-schema.org/understanding-json-schema/structuring#defs

[github-actions]

✅ Test Report | ${\color{lightgreen}Pass: 334/334}$ | ${\color{red}Fail: 0/334}$ |

[github-actions]

✅ Test Report | ${\color{lightgreen}Pass: 334/334}$ | ${\color{red}Fail: 0/334}$ |

[github-actions]

✅ Test Report | ${\color{lightgreen}Pass: 334/334}$ | ${\color{red}Fail: 0/334}$ |