# 3.2 Let us get to know NNS again

There is a lot to unpack in here @ysyms. I’ll share some preliminary thoughts and may come back with more feedback later. Chinese translation below.

I will start by giving you positive credit for engaging in the governance process in an enthusiastic way. It’s good to see more leaders emerge in governance and you are certainly stimulating thought and debate. I particularly like how your proposals are bilingual.

Dfinity has addressed their voting power situation in this post.

Currently for some reason cycledao and ICDevs are following ICPMN. That’s why there is such a big jump when ICPMN votes. Since ICPMN has 13 voting members, it takes time for our vote to be cast. This gives cycledao and ICDevs a little time to decide if they need to vote manually on a given proposal. For proposals that they don’t feel they need to have an independent voice, they seem to be happy to follow ICPMN.

This would improve if more public known neurons will step forward. There is nothing preventing that from happening and I suspect most people would welcome it. That doesn’t mean it should be easy. A neuron can’t just pop up out of nowhere. It takes time to build a relationship with the community and become trusted. I think it is highly desirable to have many public known neurons. this is counter to one of your most recent proposals, which was to eliminate public known neuron. I’d like to see it swing in the direction of having more.

I agree with most of your complaints about the NNS dApp. It needs a lot of work and I believe this has been well recognized. As you know from your engagement and research on the forum, this is in progress.

This particular proposal does not have any actionable content. Hence it is not likely to pass even though you are making points that many people will agree with. I suggest that you structure your proposals to be actionable and give people time to deliberate them on this forum before you submit them to the NNS. It will also help if you stay focused on one topic in a proposal. That way it’s less likely someone will vote no on the whole proposal just because they disagree with one part.

Here is the google translation into traditional Chinese. I hope it works properly…


Dfinity 在這篇 post 中解決了他們的投票權情況。

目前由於某種原因,cycledao 和 ICDevs 正在關注 ICPMN。這就是為什麼 ICPMN 投票時會有如此大的跳躍。由於 ICPMN 有 13 個投票成員,因此我們的投票需要時間。這讓 cycledao 和 ICDevs 有一點時間來決定他們是否需要對給定的提案進行手動投票。對於他們認為不需要有獨立發言權的提案,他們似乎很樂意關注 ICPMN。


我同意您對 NNS dApp 的大部分投訴。它需要做很多工作,我相信這已經得到了很好的認可。正如您在論壇上的參與和研究所知道的那樣,這正在進行中。

此特定提案沒有任何可操作的內容。因此,即使您提出許多人會同意的觀點,它也不太可能通過。我建議您在將提案提交給 NNS 之前,將您的提案構建為可操作的,並讓人們有時間在此論壇上對其進行審議。如果您專注於提案中的一個主題,這也會有所幫助。這樣一來,就不太可能有人僅僅因為他們不同意某個部分而對整個提案投反對票。