There’s currently an open ‘Remove Node from Subnet’ proposal for this subnet → Proposal: 131977 - ICP Dashboard (internetcomputer.org)
I have rejected this proposal. My suggestion is that this proposal should be resubmitted as a ‘Change Subnet Membership’ proposal instead.
Justifications
- This proposal summary indicates that the node will be removed in order to be ‘redeployed’ (to the same subnet…?). This subnet is already over-represented by Indian nodes (there should be no more than 3 per country for a 28 node subnet).
- I would reject any proposal to re-add this node to the subnet, and so should anyone else who respects the formally published and voted on target IC topology.
- I would also reject any proposal that would leave this subnet with only 27 nodes (rather than atomically replacing the node).There are currently plans to increase the number of nodes in this critical subnet. This proposal is in direct opposition to those plans, essentially making this subnet a 27 node subnet. I’m aware that this node is already down and not participating in consensus, but a proposal to remove it from the subnet without atomically replacing it is the wrong pattern to encourage.
- Given this, I think this proposal should really be a ‘Change Subnet Membership’ proposal (replacing the node with another one in another country). Note that ever since the introduction of the ‘Change Subnet Membership’ NNS function, ‘Remove Node from Subnet’ proposals have become old hat.
- I consider this proposal summary to be extremely poor. It does not make the context nor the intentions clear. It does not clearly identify to voters the subnet that it applies to, nor why the proposal is needed (offline node). Almost all other ‘Remove Node from Subnet’ proposal summary’s historically have been much more informative.
This proposal is illustrated by this map for voter convenience.
Map Description
- Red marker represents a removed node (transparent center for overlap visibility)
- Blue marker represents an unchanged node
- Highlighted patches represent the country the above nodes sit within
- 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 - there are plenty of nodes that could be swap in)
Node Lookup Table
You may wish to consider following my known LORIMER neuron for future Subnet Management proposals. CodeGov is another great neuron to follow for Subnet management (along with other technical topics).