Motion proposals are clearly important, and represent a stringent and meaningful deliberation process that has involved a large number of people. This shouldn’t be overturned on personal whim (do you represent DFINITY with your stance on this?).
There are many more dimensions that aren’t considered, ones that are far more important than continent (which is worth noting when talking about all dimensions). The IC target topology motion could very easily have contained a column for continent limits per subnet, but it didn’t because it’s not important enough (the other dimensions are). In fact I brought up the lack of continent in the official coefficients before the most recent IC Target Topology was announced, but the response was that this would require more discussion (and this didn’t make it into the announcement nor motion proposal).
-
I think it’s worth noting that the majority of subnets have a Nakamoto coefficient of 1 for continent, and this is perfectly acceptable and allowed by the IC target topology.
-
This proposal reduces the country Nakamoto coefficient from 6 to 5, and reduces the data center Nakamoto coefficient from 9 to 8. There’s no way that’s justified. There should be no more than 3 nodes per country, and no more than 1 node per data center. This subnet already has 5 in the same country, and 2 with the same data center, and this proposal takes the subnet further away from resolving this problem.
-
Most importantly, there’s no need to sacrifice on continent coefficient as you suggest. If this is your concern why don’t you submit a pair of proposals to free up a non-European node for this subnet (while swapping an available European node into the other subnet)?
I think this is flawed logic, and an appeal to consequences fallacy. The proposal in and of itself is bad, but don’t worry because I’ll plan to undo it afterwards. There’s no guarantee this will be possible (as it depends on nodes that are available later, and their affinity for this subnet, which is unpredictable). I expect this sort of situation is why so many important subnets are so far away from their target topology (including the NNS).
I understand you have your stance on this. I hope I’ve justified mine, and clearly explained why I’ve rejected this proposal, and believe it would be prudent for others to too.
As a side note, tone is a difficult thing to convey in text form, but I hope it’s clear there’s no animosity in this post. I take my responsibility as a known neuron (and potential followee) seriously 