Proposal Reviews | Tim - CodeGov
Voted to reject proposals 135792, 135794, 135795, 135796, 135797, 135798, 135799, 135804, 135805, 135806, 135822 & 135830. I’ve followed the same reasoning as before. The reasons given for node provider are not reasons that have been agreed upon by the community. @louisevelayo has made a very helpful suggestion for deciding on these sorts of proposals - I’ll come back to this - but for the sake of fairness I’ve opted to stay consistent with the way I’ve voted so far. The comments by @Thyassa in this thread, referenced in a couple of proposals, are indeed helpful and worthy of further clarification from Dfinity but did not convince me of wrongdoing on anyone’s part.
Voted to adopt proposal 135831. The post referenced by this proposal and the ones following it confirm that this node provider is already flagged for removal by Dfinity based on additional information that they have.
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.