Thanks Wenzel. The topology target (and whether it can be met) is what’s used for determining if the IC has enough node machines and node providers onboarded. The new IC Target Topology is based on the premise that this is currently the case, and that it would still be the case with the more ambitious topology. I see no evidence of this, and only strong indicators to the contrary.
Ongoing dialog with DFINITY has fed into my point of view on this, and I was surprised to see this motion proposal submitted while those concerns and dialogue was ongoing.
Yes, the practicality of having enough nodes onboarded (which is a problem that needs addressing if target can’t be met, particularly if that target is proposed to be made more stringent). I don’t expect any other reason to be the case (other than accidental oversights), particularly given that the NNS subnet is currently one of the worst offenders (where security and robustness is paramount), and given the sorts of responses I’ve read recently from DFINITY. If this were the case, any deviation on these terms should be clearly communicated in whichever proposals are used to enact that deviation. It should be made clear that the community is being asked to trade-off security and robustness against some other metric (effectively overturning aspects of the existing IC Target Topology motion proposal, and even more so if this one passes).
The only practical explanation I’ve seen for why some subnets might deviate from the formal target is this →
This spells out that there are not enough spare nodes to reliably meet targets for all subnets on the network - which is in stark contrast to the premise that the current motion proposal rests upon.
No, to be clear, the recent rejections are due to payload error and inappropriate NNS function to be actioned.
I accept any proposal that claims to improve decentralisation and does so (if there are not other significant issues with the proposal). I hope this clarifies things.
Thanks for following 
