Adjustment of IC Target Topology to Increase Subnet Size of Fiduciary and II subnets

[Lorimer]

I’d like to raise concerns about this motion proposal, and explain the reason why I’ve rejected it.

The IC is currently in a state where it’s not meeting the existing Target IC Topology (and hasn’t been meeting it for a while). This proposal makes the target topology even more stringent and harder to achieve. I can’t wrap my head around why this has been proposed without first demonstrating that the existing target can be met (it’s currently not).

Here’s one of numerous ‘Change Subnet Membership’ reviews that I’ve just posted that highlights the existing problem →

@Lorimer

5 nodes are proposed to be replaced with nodes in Romania, China, Singapore, Estonia, and the USA. However, this proposal leaves the subnet in a state that is still heavily in violation of the formally voted in IC Target Topology. There is supposed to be no more than 3 nodes in the same country, and no nodes sharing the same data center, owner, and/or node provider (not 7 nodes in one country, and 2 with the same data center, owner, and/or node provider).

These sorts of concerns had already been raised before this motion proposal was submitted. The discussion can be found on this thread → Subnet Management - 4zbus (Application) - Developers - Internet Computer Developer Forum (dfinity.org)

---

Before a motion proposal like this should be capable of passing, it needs to be demonstrated that the IC can achieve it’s current target (it hasn’t been achieving it for quite a while). That’s my stance (respectfully )