Thanks @dsharifi, I’m glad to see all 5 of those subnets doing well post-update.
While I voted to adopt the first 3 subnets listed above, I voted to reject the last two (the two that were least similar to the canary subnet, with significantly more load and canisters).
My main reason for rejecting was that there was no commentary on these specific proposals from DFINITY (as far as I could see). Only the original announcement, which didn’t relate to any specific proposal, and which didn’t provide any information about the strategy for how this would be rolled out and the testing that’s been performed to inform that strategy (and/or each specific proposal). It’s very difficult (or impossible) to cast an informed vote without information like this. While this sort of information cannot be directly verified, it can be used to cross-reference with other sources of information to gain confidence that everything adds up and seems reasonable.
I had numerous questions about these sorts of details, but didn’t receive an answer until after DFINITY had already voted and the proposal outcomes had been decided.
Would you consider making a few adjustments for the next batch of config updates?
-
Please consider providing a reason for why a particular subnet has been chosen for the config deployment (instead of the numerous other subnets that could have been chosen). It would be great if this could also include some details regarding the testing that’s been conducted to inform this decision, and/or the metrics that have been gathered. Without this information you’re asking voters to cast an uninformed vote.
-
Please consider declaring the subnet that the proposal relates to in the proposal title (much like the two ‘Change Subnet Membership’ proposals below. Hopefully you can see the difference this makes in navigating the proposals effectively
-
Please consider linking to forum discussion for that particular subnet and/or proposal. (e.g. fuqsr). ‘Change Subnet Membership’ proposals have started doing this recently. Note that the formal URL field doesn’t show up on mobile devices when viewing the proposal in the NNS dapp. The more contextual info / references that can be provided in the proposal summary the better
-
Please keep doing the fantastic work that you and the rest of the team are doing to make the IC better and better
These performance improvements are very exciting!
