Thanks @Sat, I really appreciate the work you’ve put in to adding more transparency and clarity to the proposal summaries. It’s good that this summary is making it clear to voters that no solution could be found that improves decentralisation. The only solution that could be found is one that decreases decentralisation, and takes this subnet further away from the target topology.
I’m planning to take a closer look tomorrow, but in the meantime, would you be able to provide some clarity on why the following nodes were not considered as viable replacement nodes?
Based on a quick initial analysis, all 14 of these nodes appear to be valid candidates for swapping into this subnet while improving decentralisation, rather than making it worse (none of these nodes belong to the same country, data center, owner, nor node provider as any other node already in this subnet).
I expect I’m missing something. Thanks in advance 