We propose new sub-categories and tags for discussing NNS proposals on the forum
We propose the category Governance with sub-category NNS proposal discussion and using the proposal’s topic as a tag
Introduction
As a result of the new voting grants, there are already more NNS proposal discussions on the forum. This is great! We would like to take this opportunity to propose how the forum can be used so that interested parties can easily find the relevant discussions. This will also help the community to verify that the voting grantees perform the agreed tasks.
In an earlier discussion, the community suggested making a new post for each submitted proposal. According to this suggestion, we propose the following process:
For all NNS proposals of the topics where there are voting grants, have one forum post where the proposal is discussed.
Some people and teams submit multiple proposals on the same day that relate to each other. For example, the release of multiple NNS canisters (see here) or multiple IC OS election proposals if a special build should be deployed to selected subnets. For these cases, the same forum post can be used for multiple connected proposals that are submitted on the same day.
If the post is just about one proposal, it is encouraged to include the proposal ID in the forum post title.
The forum post has category Governance and sub-category NNS proposal discussions.
The forum post uses the tag that is the same as the proposal topic. Specifically, this means the following for the topics for which there are grants:
Tag Protocol-canister-management for Protocol Canister Management
Tag IC-OS-election for IC OS Version Election
Tag Participant-management for Participant management
Tag Node-admin for Node Admin proposals
Tag Subnet-management for Subnet management proposals
Additional tags can be used if the poster finds this helpful, e.g., what they already used in the past.
The DFINITY teams will aim to start using this process in the beginning of September for all proposals for which there are voting grants. The same process can also be used for other proposal topics.
Relation to other sub-categories
For this process, we introduced a new sub-category of Governance on the forum. This contrasts to other sub-categories as follows:
(New) Governance - NNS proposal discussions: Used for NNS DAO community discussion about live proposals and their verification, except motion proposals.
Governance - NNS governance: Used as now, mainly NNS design discussions / roadmap discussion, discussions about motion proposals.
This can be used by anyone who would like to review and discuss proposals. We especially also ask the recipients of the voting grants to use these posts to provide evidence of their verification work. In the cases where one post includes multiple proposals, it is expected that all proposals are reviewed and the summary / analysis can just be provided in the same forum thread.
We hope you also find this useful and are looking forward to many engaging discussions on NNS proposals!
This seems like a great approach. Thanks for providing details @lara . I have just a couple questions below.
I think it will be difficult to distinguish between these two sub-categories. They both have the same meaning. Would you please consider alternative wording such as…
Governance - NNS Technical Proposals
Governance - NNS Motion Proposals
A potential alternate for Governance - NNS Technical Proposals could be Governance - NNS Code Change Proposals
For cases where one post contains multiple proposals, is it ok if each individual reviewer uses the same Reply to document all reviews for all proposals? Or do they need to document their reviews in separate Replies (one for each proposal)?
Hi @wpb ,
yes good point, I agree that the distinction for the NNS ones is not as clear cut.
My intention was to distinguish
in “NNS governance”, meta-discussion about how governance should look like. This could include topics we discuss in motion proposals, but would probably not include e.g., if we discuss how the messaging model should be changed or similar. More things like how governance should look like in the future.
“NNS proposal discussions” would be about proposals that are already submitted and can be of all kinds (replica related, governance related,…).
I agree that motion proposals often fall a bit in between these two - often topics are about governance and we we often start with a general discussion and at some point send a motion proposal.
I thought once the motion proposal is sent and open for voting, it might be useful to also have this under “NNS proposal discussions” so that the same approach can be followed by voting neurons as well as followers who would like to find why known neurons voted as they did. If there was a previous discussion the proposal would most likely anyways link to it in the proposal text.
Does this make sense?
I am also happy to try it out and adopt if this doesn’t work.
To be honest, I’m still not clear on the distinction. I suspect there will be a lot of errors in selecting the category. The folks from DFINITY who are starting posts for proposals submitted to the NNS will probably get it right, but I think the community that doesn’t normally initiate forum posts will frequently select the wrong category and subcategory.
Would it make sense to just continue using the Governance category as we do today and just have one new subcategory that is used for live technical proposals? The technical proposals are generally only initiated in advance of the actual NNS proposal as a placeholder so the link can be created for the proposal. Hence, there is no prior discussion on those posts. So the new subcategory could be used to describe live NNS proposals for technical topics.
I’m open to trying the new subcategories as you have proposed, but I’m concerned that it will be confusing and will require a lot of maintenance. It would be really helpful if there were a way to easily and reliably filter the different NNS proposal topics because there will be so many. The only way to do it on the forum is to get these subcategories and tags correct. Consistent post titles will also be important.
Yes I think that makes sense.
Just to make sure that subnet management etc. also fall in this category, I would maybe widen the term “technical proposals” to “any live non-motion proposal”.
But I think this matches your intention IIUC. If not, please let me know.
It can still be of course that some people get it wrong, but if this helps categorising most proposals and we can continue education each other and getting better using the right ones, I think this is already a huge help.
=> I edited the description in my first post accordingly. I stayed with the old names though as I think it is better not to say “code changes” - e.g., for “add node provider” and similar proposals no code is actually changed so I fear this is also confusing.
