Below is the text and a link to a post from one of our reviewers @Lorimer for proposal 131055. This post is significant because it describes why he voted to reject this proposal even though the CodeGov neuron overall voted to Adopt. I think he has a good point and it is appropriate to have a high standard regarding the accuracy of the proposal the Summary for IC-OS Version Election proposals since these are the proposals where major changes to the IC replica start.
"Build successful and hashes generated on my machine match (CDN and local build), and the GuestOS hash matches the proposal payload.
Voted to reject, due to what I consider to be an inaccurate proposal summary (happy to be alone on this). Issue raised on the forum.
This sort of thing seems to be a recurring problem, and while I don’t believe this specific proposal in isolation represents a danger to the IC, I think collectively these sorts of proposals undermine the integrity of IC proposal history. I think the clarity and validity of a proposal summary is very important (if a proposal summary can be validated by a number of reviewers, then other more casual reviewers can have confidence in what the proposal summary claims and do not necessarily need to dig beneath the surface). Ultimately, I think accurate proposal summaries is something we should be requiring rather than preferring."