I definitely agree that being a diligent voter is no small task. There definitely ought to be some compensation. I feel like the Known Neuron status could be a bit more standardized perhaps. By that I mean, completing reviews publicly and maybe even recording videos like you’ve done with CodeGov @wpb. I’ve watched your YT video on the CodeGov website and that was very helpful to understand what CodeGov is all about. Now while everyone may not be comfortable with showing their face in a video and recording, take @Accumulating.icp for example. I haven’t seen anyone do what he does with the SNS proposals, and I’m sure that takes a lot of time. I like the Known Neuron process as it is but I feel like there could be a way to strengthen the visibility of what Known Neurons intentions and thoughts are on different aspects of the IC as there are new proposals coming at such a high pace.if I’m going to follow a vote, I want the best of the best and searching the forums and vpGeek can be a task in itself. Otherwise, I’d like to make the vote myself. But as you said, it requires a deep knowledge of the inter workings of the IC and what has already been done before. While I feel like I have a good understanding of how things work, there are people who have been in the community longer than me with way more VP that I feel it’d be better to leave it to them.
Thank you @ckMood. I appreciate your kind words and agree with your perspective on how to be diligent with voting and Followee selection. One feature that I believe is really cool about neuron Followee configuration is that we can all set different Followee(s) for each proposal topic. Hence, if you trust one Followee(s) for SNS and another Followee(s) for Governance and another Followee(s) for Replica Version Management and another Followee(s) for Node Admin and yet another Followee(s) for everything else, then it’s easy to configure your neuron in that way. In fact, you can follow multiple Followees for the same topic as long as you are confident that they will always vote on that topic. Governance and SNS do not fall under the All Topics catch all, which means you do have to explicitly set a Followee(s) on those topics if you don’t want to vote manually. However, all other topics are covered under All Topics. The Followee(s) you set for All Topics will cast your vote on all other topics UNLESS you explicitly set a Followee(s) for a specific topic, in which case that explicit Followee(s) will cast your vote on that proposal topic. I suspect you know all this, so I may just be writing this out for new members of the ICP community or people who are less familiar with neuron configuration options. You started such a good discussion in this thread that it felt like a good place to provide this additional information.
It may not be obvious, so I thought I’d explain how CodeGov makes our reviews public. We have focused our reviews on Replica Version Management proposals since April, but have recently started verifying System Canister Management proposals as well. Each week, DFINITY starts a forum post before they submit a replica update proposal to the NNS. This enables them to provide a link to the forum for discussion in the proposal. The CodeGov team adheres to a 2 day self appointed deadline to complete our reviews and post them in the CodeGov portal on DSCVR, which can be found here. Hence, for every proposal, you can find the full review completed by each team member of the CodeGov project. After all reviews are complete, I will typically summarize our findings and post them on the forum in the thread that DFINITY started. Unfortunately, there is not a forum category dedicated to these proposals. However, most of them can be easily found by filtering forum posts with the tags Replica OR Release. If you scan through either list, you will see that CodeGov routinely provides a summary of our decision and a highlight of any questions, concerns, discrepancies that we found. There has actually been a lot of feedback between the CodeGov team and the change owners at DFINITY on these reviews. Any time you see comments from me, @ZackDS, @Zane, @cyberowl, @ilbert, @massimoalbarello, @tiago89, @Gekctek, or @Icdev2dev in a forum post that has these tags, then it likely in the context of work they are doing as a reviewer for the CodeGov project. We have been relatively active and public with our reviews and independent voting on these proposals.
I agree. @Accumulating.icp does an impressive job with his SNS due diligence. I may not agree with everything he concludes, but I certainly have a lot of respect for the work he has produced as presented on the forum. It’s amazing how much time and effort he puts into them. I actually wish there were several people or organizations in the ICP ecosystem who were willing to put in similar levels of effort. It is a challenge to sift through all the information available for each SNS, so I believe it would be helpful if there were multiple independent and objective reviews of these SNS projects and their decentralization sales. So far @Accumulating.icp is the only individual who has decided to provide this service to the ICP ecosystem. I think it is too much work for people to do as a volunteer. Hence, if we ever want additional people or organizations to perform this work in a professional manner, then it will likely need to be incentivized. I see this service as another public good for the ICP ecosystem.
Couldn’t agree more.