There’s now a replacement proposal for the above, currently open for voting (see below).
Proposal 132141
TLDR: I’ve rejected this proposal as it does not solve the offline node issue, and the payload parameters appear to contains errors.
Note that node zpjxp is included in both the nodes removed and nodes added parameters of the payload. Swapping nodes is supposed to be a transactional operation (I wouldn’t be surprised if this would fail to execute).
- My understanding is that the purpose of this proposal was supposed to be to remove the offline CM1 node so that @MalithHatananchchige and his team can remove the node from the wider IC network before redeploying with updated config. This proposal does not allow for the necessary set of steps to achieve this.
-
The other 5 node swaps in this proposal are taking the opportunity to improve subnet decentralisation (given there’s already a need for a proposal). 5 nodes are proposed to be replaced with nodes in Romania, China, Singapore, Estonia, and the USA. However, this proposal leaves the subnet in a state that is still heavily in violation of the formally voted in IC Target Topology. There is supposed to be no more than 3 nodes in the same country, and no nodes sharing the same data center, owner, and/or node provider (not 7 nodes in one country, and 2 with the same data center, owner, and/or node provider).
-
My suggestion would be to reject this proposal and resubmit one that solves the offline node problem, and gets this critical subnet back into a state that conforms to the IC target topology (else clearly explain in the proposal summary why this latter point is not feasible).
Decentralisation Stats
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
| Smallest Distance | Average Distance | Largest Distance | |
|---|---|---|---|
| EXISTING | 0 km | 8030.675 km | 19445.845 km |
| PROPOSED | 0 km (NaN%) | 8184.229 km (+1.9%) | 19445.845 km |
This proposal 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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXISTING | 5 | 22 | 39 | 34 | 37 |
| PROPOSED | 5 | 23 (+4.3%) | 38 (-2.6%) | 36 (+5.6%) | 36 (-2.8%) |
This proposal improves decentralisation in terms of jurisdiction diversity, and data center ownership.
However, it reduces decentralisation in terms of data center and node provider diversity 
Largest number of nodes with the same characteristic (e.g. continent, country, data center, etc.) →
| Continent | Country | Data Center | Owner | Node Provider | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXISTING | 13 | 8 | 2 | 3 | 2 |
| PROPOSED | 13 | 7 (-12.5%) | 2 | 2 (-33.33%) | 2 |
See here for acceptable limits → Motion 125549 (note that these are due for a slight revision)
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)
Table
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.
Other good neurons to follow:
- CodeGov (will soon be committed to actively reviewing and voting on Subnet Management proposals based on those reviews)
- WaterNeuron (the WaterNeuron DAO frequently discuss proposals like this in order to vote responsibly based on DAO consensus)