Grants for voting neurons

[Lorimer]

@marc0olo

what would be awesome for the community, if the commits would actually link to the github repo, so when reading a review they could also quickly look up the commit itself. I think this can easily be copied from the original summary of the DRE-Team.

Like this? →

@Lorimer

dbce2fa6d Consensus,Interface(consensus): Increase block maker delay when there have been too many non-rank-0 blocks notarized (#1531)

• This looks like a great change, particularly in light of the recent subnet config updates to significantly reduce notarisation delay. It’s similar to the sort of change I had in mind here →

---

Other aspects to IC OS proposals that haven’t yet been mentioned include unelections, e.g. →

@Lorimer

I’ve also validated the unelection component of this proposal below.

There currently appear to be 13 blessed replica versions registered, 6 of which would be unelected by this proposal. These unelected versions are not running on any subnets, nor any unassigned nodes, so appears safe to unelect. Expand for details.

I’ve listed blessed replica versions below, ordered by elected date, and crossed out the versions that would be unelected.

• 36c1976, elected 2024-09-09 (proposal 132375), UNELECTION PROPOSED, running on 0 subnets
• 843e71b, elected 2024-09-09 (proposal 132376), UNELECTION PROPOSED, running on 0 subnets
• 3318f74, elected 2024-09-11 (proposal 132412), UNELECTION PROPOSED, running on 0 subnets
• 290fd2a, elected 2024-09-11 (proposal 132413), UNELECTION PROPOSED, running on 0 subnets
• 5d1beac, elected 2024-09-15 (proposal 132500), UNELECTION PROPOSED, running on 0 subnets
• afe1a18, elected 2024-09-16 (proposal 132481), running on 0 subnets
• 1799735, elected 2024-09-16 (proposal 132482), running on 0 subnets
• c180069, elected 2024-09-16 (proposal 132507), UNELECTION PROPOSED, running on 0 subnets
• c664899, elected 2024-09-18 (proposal 132547), running on 1 subnets and all unassigned nodes (since proposal 133093)
• cacf86a, elected 2024-09-18 (proposal 132548), running on 0 subnets
• 0441f40, elected 2024-09-23 (proposal 133061), running on 0 subnets
• 7f6a81f, elected 2024-09-23 (proposal 133062), running on 27 subnets
• c87abf7, elected 2024-09-23 (proposal 133063), running on 9 subnets

@Lorimer

I’ve also reviewed the unelection component of this proposal below.

To my knowledge, this aspect is currently not a feature of other reviews. Issues here have caused proposal execution failures in the past.

---

@marc0olo

for the subnet management topic there is actually a good example of @timk11 which even refers to a post that clarified the status of a node

Are you able to clarify what you mean (is this something that other reviews could improve on, such as the other reviews for that same proposal)?

---

@marc0olo

all reviewers to check for missing commits in the proposal

I rejected 5 IC OS proposals last month due to inaccurate proposal summaries (regarding which commits were included). Even the 2 proposals that I adopted had inaccuracies (though less significant ones, which is why I adopted).

@marc0olo

in the past there have been a lot of inaccuracies around the provided commits. did we address this somehow?

This is still the case, but it’s slowly getting better. We need reviewers to be putting the pressure on - not just me. I personally think there’s a long way to go though (the issues and recommendations described in the ‘Do U C What IC’ article are still just as relevant today).