Thanks @marc0olo, I think I also understand where you’re coming from. I’d also like to see other peoples’ take on this.
There are cases where discussion takes places that’s independent of any one proposal (but which potentially relates to the history of the subnet in general). Here’s a fairly recent example.
My point is that the right context is always the history of the subnet (if you’re interested in voting on the proposal). Here are just a few examples that demonstrate this:
- Set subnet notarisation delay to 300ms on subnet ejbmu ← You can spot what’s wrong with that proposal simply by scrolling up to the previous post
- Replace a node in subnet 6pbhf ← Another example where scrolling up to the previous post provides valuable insight into the new proposal (see here for an explanation)
- The mysterious situation with the Bitcoin subnet may well be valuable context for the next proposal. Similarly the history for lhg73 is valuable context.
- There are also numerous examples where a sequence of proposals are required on a specific subnets to action a desired change. Other examples include temporarily worsening decentralisation coefficients in order to perform a task on some nodes, followed by another proposal to address the decentralisation issue caused by the prior proposal.
I don’t think we can or should depend on information that has been provided by the proposer to support their proposal (they want the proposal to pass or they wouldn’t have submitted it). The reviewer’s job is to challenge that perspective, not make any assumptions about the integrity of the proposer, and fact check the details.
The only real benefit I can see to segregating discussions for specific proposals is that it becomes easier to quickly see that every elected reviewer has fulfilled their role on that specific proposal.
Are there any examples that demonstrate the potential utility of this segregation from the point of view of a voter?
I don’t think recent efforts would need reverting. Instead of creating a new topic, the tool could just post to an existing topic. If this is done, I think it would be good if the details of the post could be contained in a collapsible section (expandable if the user wants to see it).