Hello everyone,
I’m happy to inform you that we have finished reviewing the submissions for the first review period, and all participants have qualified and will receive their respective grants in due time.
While reviewing the submissions, we noticed a few things we would like to see improved in the upcoming review periods. These mostly revolve around this section in the initial post of this topic.
Missing proposal referrals
For some of the reviews, it was not immediately clear which proposal they referred to. Please always refer to the proposal you are reviewing, ideally in the headline of your post.
Reviews in the wrong topic
Please avoid creating your own topic when reviewing a proposal. Instead, reply to the topic created by the submitter. For the Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, and Participant Management & Node Admin topics, we are working on internal improvements to streamline the creation of topics for each proposal or for batched proposals submitted on the same day. In the meantime, please reply to the post created by the submitter, even if it isn’t in its own dedicated topic.
Missing summaries
Most reviews were missing summaries of the proposal. We would like you to, at the very least, confirm that the summary provided by DFINITY matches the content of the proposal and the changes it introduces.
Lack of in-depth reviews of commits for Protocol Canister Management & IC OS Version Election
Some reviews lacked in-depth analysis of the commits included in the proposal. We ask you to at least provide a summary for every commit, comparing what is described in the commit message with what you observe at a high level. Additionally, considering the 15-hour-per-week budget, we encourage you to conduct as many in-depth reviews as possible, verifying that the proposed changes make sense and that the implementation is sound. Please provide notes in you review showing that this work was done.
Only link to your reviews
When providing a link to a review in the table, please only link to your own reviews. If, for some reason, no review was possible or necessary for a specific proposal, please still create your own post—mentioning the proposal ID—and explain why no review was necessary or possible.
Missing reasoning for approval or rejection
Please always provide a reason when approving or rejecting a proposal.
Convoluted reviews
Please ensure your reviews are well-structured and clean, without unnecessary preambles or distracting content.
To summarize, I’d like to ask everyone to revisit the “What to do to get the grants” section and adjust their reviews accordingly.
While this may seem like a lot of critique, I’d like to mention that we are very happy with the overall quality of the reviews. Your work has already sparked numerous debates and helped identify errors.
Keep up the great work!