Modification: Issue Templates - Adding template for handling LDN application exceptions

[dkkapur]

Issue Description

There is no clear format for when LDN applicants need to break out of the standard LDN flow, i.e., if the data is private, encrypted, or the data owner name cannot be exposed publicly. We instead see ad hoc issues being created such as:
#489
#536
#564
#577

Impact

• Clarifies expectations for those applying for DataCap for these "exception" case projects
• Greater clarity in what is unique about each application, which provides more information to notaries to make an informed decision on the application
• In the future - can be used for better tracking and analytics since the metadata and info will be structured the same

Proposed Solution(s)

Introduce a new template in this repo. Here's the current proposed template in a PR: #592

Timeline

ASAP - can be implemented right away.

Technical dependencies

None.

End of POC checkpoint (if applicable)

N/A

Risks and mitigations

If this is confusing or difficult, we can easily iterate or roll back.

Related Issues

#592

[raghavrmadya]

This is much needed for increased transparency as well as providing a more holistic view for notaries to make an informed decision on applications. Looking forward to discussing this with the community at the next governance call!

[jessie8o8]

If these types of questions mentioned are already consistently being asked. I would like to see it formalized and defined in a template. This would relieve delay on the process if all the relevant questions are asked up front and would relieve the burden of notaries on having to search and inquire for information mentioned in this template.

The process now seems to be pointing them #489 and telling them to follow their lead. A couple problems with that

• Leads to variance in proposal submission. What sections are to be answered? What can be omitted?
• Not web2 friendly. Especially for those that are unfamiliar with the Github platform

[dkkapur]

Going to merge this one in. Community has been supportive, this seems to be non controversial.

[dkkapur]

#592 was merged just now. Thanks!