Bringing clarity to ICP upgrade proposals

[wpb]

@aterga

Currently we do not have full consistency over how proposal types and topics are labeled (this is one of the reasons I personally believe that the change discussed in this thread is worth adopting, as a more consistent grouping of proposals by topics would simplify having frontends follow a consistent naming scheme).

I agree. This proposal seems reasonable and a step in the right direction. It would be nice if frontends had a way to label each proposal topic and type consistently. It seems like those labels should be defined on the backend, but I understand there is a language issue.

@aterga

here’s an example Update Elected HostOS Versions proposal: Proposal: 125506 - ICP Dashboard (it isn’t in the first 100 Node Admin proposals, hence one needs to look deeper, indeed).

Wow, that was a nice trip down memory lane. The link to the forum post in that proposal included all three proposals that came out that week (125503, 125504, and 125506). There were many questions from the CodeGov team and a lot of different DFINITY team members provided great responses. It was one of the most active discussions we’ve had on these types of proposals.

Regarding my original concern, it appears that the Update Elected HostOS Version proposal type is rare. Hence, grouping it into the new IC OS Version Election proposal topic shouldn’t be a problem. In fact, we should probably be intentionally reviewing that proposal topic anyway. It just hasn’t been high on our radar screen since it currently falls under Node Admin and they have been rare.

@aterga

I think HostOS-related proposals will be submitted less frequently than GuestOS; I’ll check with the Node team and get back to you with a more precise answer.

Yes, it would be helpful if you could verify that HostOS updates are still expected to be low frequency. It would also be helpful if they could be issued on Friday’s just like the GuestOS updates. The work process that DFINITY has been using for Replica Version Management proposals has been working very well, so it would be great if all proposals under the new IC-OS Version Election topic could follow that same work process.

@aterga

You just need a way to filter by proposal type, not just topic, right? Could you use the above-mentioned DFX command (or, similarly, go via the API) as part of the CodeGov process?

I’m not too concerned about being able to filter proposal topics and types with the automation tools we have set up and that are in development. I passed the DFX recommendation you provided to our CodeGov team just in case it is helpful. My main concern was with the inability to easily filter on the dashboard for proposal type. Given that Revise Elected HostOS Version is expected to be infrequent, it probably won’t be a problem after all. It’s more likely that we will include these proposal types in our reviews moving forward.

@aterga

if the changes discussed in this thread are adopted, the topic IC OS Version Election will indeed fall under All Topics Except Governance and SNS

Thanks for clarifying this detail. It makes sense.

@aterga

While there would be two proposal types under the topic which used to be covering only GuestOS/replica version election, one could argue that the status quo is much more confusing; IMHO, there’s really no rationale why electing new versions of one (HostOS) component of IC OS should fall under Node Admin, while another (GuestOS) — under its own topic.

I’d be interested in knowing @Manu’s thoughts on this one. Particularly, why did HostOS updates end up in Node Admin instead of Replica Version Management? There really wasn’t any distinction between GuestOS, HostOS, and SetupOS back when Manu first proposed creating the Replica Version Management proposal topic with proposal 80639 (forum discussion). Perhaps there is an interesting historical context.

Thank you for the excellent explanations on this proposal @aterga. I’m not seeing any major issues. I would vote to support this proposal.