yes, this is indeed a good example
Other aspects to IC OS proposals that haven’t yet been mentioned include unelections, e.g. →
that is indeed also a valuable piece to check.
To my knowledge, this aspect is currently not a feature of other reviews. Issues here have caused proposal execution failures in the past.
so you say that proposal executions failed in the past due to missing unelection check? it would definitely make sense to include such check then.
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)?
nothing concrete, just picked a good example. there were many good examples though. just always make sure to include the proposal id in your post as @cryptoschindler outlined above. and for subnet management reviews we currently need to stick to each unique subnet thread where the proposal is posted. we cannot aggregate threads here, at least for now.
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).
I agree it is important to improve here if we want to get more independent people and entities involved in reviewing proposals.
Just to add, IC OS reviews take up a lot of space and often just represent noise (confirming the validity of the commit messages). I think it would make a lot more sense to mandate that reviews enclose details of this sort in…
… sections like this (expand for details)
personally I don’t think this is really needed. but if you want you can go such route. I would recommend then to enclose the details of the whole review in one section then, possibly only the commit summary review which requires most space.