This proposal replaces 2 nodes for the stated reasons “offboarding the second rack of nodes in the [GE1 / MB1] DC after 48 months”. These match the nodes listed in the linked forum posts. As shown in the proposal, decentralisation parameters are improved with respect to country and remain within the requirements of the target topology.
About CodeGov…
CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these topics and Synapse on most other topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralisation of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron and KongSwap with a known neuron and credible Followees.
Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.
TLDR: Decentralisation stats are improved in terms of countries (see Decentralisation Stats below). There are also clear public declarations for the cordoned nodes which are referred to in the proposal summary.
2 cordoned node replaced with unassigned nodes (1 is at the same data center and node provider as the node being replaced).
Decentralisation Stats
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
Smallest Distance
Average Distance
Largest Distance
EXISTING
224.22 km
7341.452 km
16654.257 km
PROPOSED
304.712 km (+35.9%)
7635.969 km (+4%)
16654.257 km
This proposal slightly increases decentralisation, considered purely in terms of geographic distance (and therefore there’s a slight theoretical increase in localised disaster resilience).
Subnet characteristic counts →
Continents
Countries
Data Centers
Owners
Node Providers
Node Operator
EXISTING
4
12
13
13
13
13
PROPOSED
4
13 (+7.7%)
13
13
13
13
This proposal slightly improves decentralisation in terms of jurisdiction diversity.
Largest number of nodes with the same characteristic (e.g. continent, country, data center, etc.) →
The above subnet information is illustrated below, followed by a node reference table:
Map Description
Red marker represents a removed node (transparent center for overlap visibility)
Green marker represents an added node
Blue marker represents an unchanged node
Highlighted patches represent the country the above nodes sit within (red if the country is removed, green if added, otherwise grey)
Light grey markers with yellow borders are examples of unassigned nodes that would be viable candidates for joining the subnet according to formal decentralisation coefficients (so this proposal can be viewed in the context of alternative solutions that are not being used)
*This comment references the latest comment in the Subnet Management - General Discussion thread only to generate an automated cross-link from the general thread (to improve topic navigation).
You may wish to follow D-QUORUM if you found this analysis helpful.
Known Neurons to follow if you're too busy to keep on top of things like this
If you found this analysis helpful and would like to follow the vote of the LORIMER known neuron in the future, consider configuring LORIMER as a followee for the Subnet Management topic.
Additional good neurons to follow:
D-QUORUM (a highly decentralized neuron that follows neurons that have been elected by the NNS)
Synapse (currently follows the LORIMER and CodeGov known neurons for Subnet Management, and is a generally well informed known neuron to follow on numerous other topics)
WaterNeuron (the WaterNeuron DAO frequently discuss proposals like this in order to vote responsibly based on DAO consensus)
Note that this analysis involved data provided by the IC-API, which is not open source. I’m in the process of switching over to more verifiable sources of this sort of information for future proposal reviews. See here for related discussion.
Vote: Adopted Reason:
The proposal replaces cordoned healthy Active status node ag3bm in the GE1 DC from Switzerland and yttmc in the MB1 DC from Slovenia, with unassigned healthy Awaiting status node scjrij from Slovenia and 2dzst from India , with slight improvement to the decentralization of the subnet.
Motivation is offboarding the second rack of nodes in the GE1 DC and offboarding the second rack of nodes in the mb1 DC after 48 months, in line with the forum post.
CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these topics and Synapse on most other topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralization of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron and KongSwap with a known neuron and credible Followees.
Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.
Replaces cordoned nodes yttmc and ag3bm with nodes 2dzst and 2dzst on subnet mpubz.
The reason for this proposal is to offboard the MB1 and GE1 DCs consistent with forum posts made on the forum thread used for posts regarding the renovation/sell of Gen-1 node machines by NPs.
Both the NP and DC stated in the forum post and forum post match the ones from the node being removed in the proposal.
About CodeGov…
CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these topics and Synapse on most other topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralization of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron and KongSwap with a known neuron and credible Followees.
Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.
Current Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 5.00
Attribute
Nakamoto Coefficient
Identical attribute values
Max allowed identical values
Unique Counts
Country
5
1
3
13
City
5
1
1
13
Data Center
5
1
1
13
Data Center Owner
5
1
1
13
Node Provider ID
5
1
1
13
Proposed Nakamoto Coefficients and Topology, avg = 5.00
Attribute
Nakamoto Coefficient
Identical attribute values
Max allowed identical values
Unique Counts
Country
5
1
3
13
City
5
1
1
13
Data Center
5
1
1
13
Data Center Owner
5
1
1
13
Node Provider ID
5
1
1
13
You may wish to follow the CO.DELTA known neuron if you found this analysis helpful.
CO.DELTA
We’re a verifiably decentralised collective who review IC deltas (changes applied by NNS proposals). We follow a common code:
Look: We observe the details and context of NNS proposals.
Test: We test and verify the claims made by those proposals.
Automate: We automate as much as possible by building increasingly sophisticated tools that streamline and strengthen the reviewal process.
Every vote cast by CO.DELTA is the result of consensus among diligent, skilled and experienced team members acting independently. The CO.DELTA neuron follows the vote of D-QUORUM on NNS topics that the CO.DELTA team does not handle directly. You can therefore follow CO.DELTA on all topics and rely on the highest quality of vote.
Hey @Sat, similar to the other proposal, is there a public announcement about this from the Node Provider that can be pointed to?
Country Discrepancies (2)
One of these is a very large discrepancy in terms of distance, which I’m surprised to see given than ipinfo.io uses a probe network for increased geolocation accuracy. However the node in question is not the subject of this proposal, so just something to revisit at some point I think.
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
Smallest Distance
Average Distance
Largest Distance
EXISTING
304.712 km
7635.969 km
16654.257 km
PROPOSED
304.712 km
7615.32 km (-0.3%)
16616.248 km (-0.2%)
This proposal slightly reduces decentralisation, considered purely in terms of geographic distance (and therefore there’s a slight theoretical reduction in localised disaster resilience).
Subnet characteristic counts →
Continents
Countries
Data Centers
Owners
Node Providers
Node Operator
EXISTING
4
13
13
13
13
13
PROPOSED
4
13
13
13
13
13
Largest number of nodes with the same characteristic (e.g. continent, country, data center, etc.) →
The above subnet information is illustrated below, followed by a node reference table:
Map Description
Red marker represents a removed node (transparent center for overlap visibility)
Green marker represents an added node
Blue marker represents an unchanged node
Highlighted patches represent the country the above nodes sit within (red if the country is removed, green if added, otherwise grey)
Light grey markers with yellow borders are examples of unassigned nodes that would be viable candidates for joining the subnet according to formal decentralisation coefficients (so this proposal can be viewed in the context of alternative solutions that are not being used)
Black dotted line connects to a small black marker that shows where the IP address indicates the node is located (according to ipinfo.io). This is only displayed if it conflicts with where IC records indicate the node is located. See Country Discrepancies section above for more info.
You may wish to follow the CO.DELTA known neuron (coming soon) if you found this analysis helpful.
CO.DELTA △
We’re a verifiably decentralised collective who review IC deltas (changes applied by NNS proposals). We follow a common code:
Look: We observe the details and context of NNS proposals
Test: We test and verify the claims made by those proposals
Automate: We automate as much as possible by building increasingly sophisticated tools that streamline and strengthen the reviewal process.
Every vote cast by CO.DELTA is the result of consensus among diligent, skilled and experienced team members acting independently. The CO.DELTA neuron follows the vote of D-QUORUM on NNS topics that the CO.DELTA team does not handle directly. You can therefore follow CO.DELTA on all topics and rely on the highest quality of vote.
Note that this analysis involved data provided by the IC-API, which is not open source. I’m in the process of switching over to more verifiable sources of this sort of information for future proposal reviews. See here for related discussion.
TLDR:
This is similar to Proposal 135541, missing proper motivation in the proposal description for future reference. There will be many node redeployments for HSM less redeployment for new reward 1.1, so I would highly recommend if we can have proper visibility on the proposals.
ISSUE: Node ad6tc… is not degraded or dead as claimed.
Passes:
Node ad6tc…: Remove from Subnet check passed. Node jiogo…: Replacement Status check passed.
You may wish to follow the CO.DELTA known neuron if you found this analysis helpful.
CO.DELTA
We’re a verifiably decentralised collective who review IC deltas (changes applied by NNS proposals). We follow a common code:
Look: We observe the details and context of NNS proposals
Test: We test and verify the claims made by those proposals
Automate: We automate as much as possible by building increasingly sophisticated tools that streamline and strengthen the reviewal process.
Every vote cast by CO.DELTA is the result of consensus among diligent, skilled and experienced team members acting independently. The CO.DELTA neuron follows the vote of D-QUORUM on NNS topics that the CO.DELTA team does not handle directly. You can therefore follow CO.DELTA on all topics and rely on the highest quality of vote.
This proposal replaces 1 node in subnet qxesv, appearing in the decentralization tool as “UP” for the given reason “freeing up nodes from OR1 node operator for an HSM-less redeployment”. As shown in the proposal, decentralisation parameters are unchanged and remain within the requirements of the target topology. However, there is nothing within the proposal text or in any of the provided links to support the given reason for this change, so for this reason I have voted to reject.
CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these technical topics. We also have a group of Followees who vote independently on the Governance and the SNS & Neurons’ Fund topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralisation of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron, KongSwap, and Alice with a known neuron and credible Followees.
Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.
Thanks @sat for clarifying that. (And for your extraordinarily prompt response!) I’ve already cast my vote but I’ll be grateful for any further detail. Could we make it that all the relevant background or links thereto are included in any future proposals of this type? I imagine there might be a few more of these to come.
Thanks for starting this conversation @timk11 and thanks to @sat for providing an explanation that should also be considered. I agree with Tim that it would be helpful if there was a post somewhere explaining when a node provider wants a node taken offline or off a subnet. Perhaps there is and we haven’t found it yet. If it’s not already part of the policy to announce the request publicly, then perhaps it should be. Ideally that public request would occur before a proposal is submitted so it can be linked.
Indeed, I don’t think there is a dedicated post for this specifically. There is this post, where @GiantLeaf announces the sites they will retain, and they link to their self declaration, where they state the intent to complete the HSM-Less migration.
I think like a couple of other (Gen-1) Node Providers, they initiated this process right on the start date (February 12 as per these instructions) but some nodes of their nodes were still in subnets. And this was before it was communicated by DFINITY to hold off on completing the HSM-less migration.
Quickly looking at the OR1 DC, I believe it is only this node that is still under the NO record with ID redpf. The rest belong to the new NO record with ID 2rqo7. So freeing this node up would allow the redeploy to go smoothly.
Sorry for not doing a dedicated forum post about it. I wanted to migrate as many nodes as possible to the new Node Operator record and then submit the reward configuration proposal to type 1.1.
I was planning to redeploy this node, but I didn’t want to do it before it was removed from the subnet because then it would be degraded while it was still in a subnet.
Indeed. There’s a long and recurring discussion about this which I linked to in my review. My understanding is that this should already be considered the policy, which is why I’ve rejected. I’d be happy to adopt any future proposal like this that follows procedure, and ensures the associated information required for verification is presented in the proposal summary.
I personally think policies are important, and are pointless if they’re not required to be followed in order for a proposal to pass. Having said that I completely understand why others will be happy to adopt this proposal given that the relevant information has been provided after the fact
Replaces cordoned node ad6tcDashboard Status: Active with node jiogoDashboard Status: Awaiting on subnet mpubz.
The proposal makes a necessary replacement by removing a cordoned node that needs to be reployed for HSM-less migration.
There is been justified contest with this proposal for not fully explaining the changes and providing links that show the intention by the NP in question to have it’s node removed for redeployment.
Although I do agree that this type of proposals should have a policy of providing the necessary forum posts and links to justify the replacement, it has been common knowledge for us reviewers that this NP had the intention of doing HSM-less redeployment, if not now any time soon (deadline is 15th of March), and intent from the NP can be found in it’s wiki.
Neverthelss the NP as come forward in this post showing intent to redeploy this node, so I don’t see any issue with adopting this proposal, as to make the process for the NP smoother.
Other reviewers also correctly observed that this type of proposals will be common in the coming days, so with adopting this proposal for the reasons stated above, I don’t want in any way down play the importance of making proposals with proper justification of intent.
About CodeGov
CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these technical topics. We also have a group of Followees who vote independently on the Governance and the SNS & Neuron’s Fund topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralization of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron, KongSwap, and Alice with a known neuron and credible Followees.
Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.
We appreciate CodeGov and the community for their productive discussion, which clarified the proposal’s context. Now that these details are clearer, the DFINITY Foundation will vote “Yes” on 135542 not to delay the NP in question. We also acknowledge the need for stronger, more specific justifications in future proposals and will work to implement them going forward.
Vote: Adopted Reason:
The proposal replaces 2 helathy nodes motivated by “freeing up nodes from OR1 node operator for an HSM-less redeployment” without any change to decentralization.
About CodeGov
CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these technical topics. We also have a group of Followees who vote independently on the Governance and the SNS & Neuron’s Fund topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralization of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron, KongSwap, and Alice with a known neuron and credible Followees.
Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.
Thanks @alexu, CO.DELTA is a new independent collective of reviewers (so far comprised of @aligatorr89, @MalithHatananchchige and me). It’s great to see that people are finding our reviews useful.
Issues:
ISSUE: Node 
Passes: