Proposals 135774-88 | Tim - CodeGov
Proposals 135774, 135776, 135777, 135778, 135779, 135780, 135782, 135784, 135785, 135786, 135787 & 135788
Voted to reject.
The links provided in the proposals do not point to specific posts that relate to the node providers mentioned. Overall I think this is becoming a worthwhile process, in terms of looking for node providers that are problematic or inactive. However, the discussion about this is spread across several places in the forum and not easy to keep track of. My general approach to voting on these proposals is to base decisions as much as possible on the information in the proposal itself or by following links that are given within it. With the current volume of proposals it is not feasible to search through the entire forum for information pertaining to each proposal, so I see the onus as being on the proposer to include or link any necessary information in the proposal itself. Beyond this, I generally follow the will of the IC community as expressed through Governance proposals, or failing this, I’d look to established guidelines or documentation. Several of these proposals give reasons such as no activity, no relation to tech, etc, which have not been agreed on by the community as reasons for removing NPs. I did verify that none of the NPs in this group of proposals currently have any nodes registered. I think it would be worthwhile to work out some standards for removing inactive NPs but again this should be agreed upon by an NNS vote. ID requirements have changed over the time that the IC has been running and I think these should also be clarified in the same way. I appreciate that Dfinity voted to adopt several proposals in the previous batch of 35 based on information they had that was not easily available to the rest of us, and I would probably not object if they were to adopt some more of these proposals for similar reasons, so long as they give clear justification.
Proposal 135775
Voted to reject.
The reasons given in the linked post do not seem sufficient to indicate that this NP’s documents are fraudulent. The incorrect hyperlink here might have been a typing error by someone in Dfinity for all we know. There’s nothing in the Node Provider Documentation to indicate that an electricity bill is insufficient as an ID document. This is a better example than some other IDs I’ve seen. If we want to raise the standard then it would be reasonable to submit this as a Governance proposal.
Proposal 135781
Voted to adopt.
This NP has “deprecated” added to their name in the IC dashboard. I understand that Dfinity edits the names manually, so this suggests that this NP has been flagged as permanently inactive. If on the other hand they actually decided to include “deprecated” as part of their NP name, then this was not a very sensible choice.
Proposal 135783
Voted to adopt.
The reason given for removing this NP [“this node provider has become Carbon Twelve”] is supported by the forum posts linked in the proposal and C12’s self-declaration document which can be found by following the links from these posts.
About CodeGov
CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these technical topics. We also have a group of Followees who vote independently on the Governance and the SNS & Neurons’ Fund topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralisation of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron, KongSwap, and Alice with a known neuron and credible Followees.
Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.