Subnet Management - uzr34 (II)

Thanks @sat, I’m just about to start a busy day at work so can’t commit much to this response at the moment, but wanted to share a few quick comments.

I really appreciate your response, and I agree that the motion proposal would need re-submitting with the parameters that are actually deemed important (before then though, this proposal needs rejecting, as it violates the motion that currently stands). I would also suggest that the premise for any new motion proposal should be reworded to make it clear that current tooling only allows for an ‘estimation’ that there are currently enough nodes (this isn’t known for sure). ← This is a separate issue, but worth noting.

…and this is the same tooling and business processes that have led to subnets such as the NNS drifting into far away topology states that are clearly more dangerous than is tolerable →

Just to reiterate, if it’s really important to you, there are viable approaches to move forward that do not require your continent coefficient to be violated, nor the rules of the standing motion proposal. It would require the community to reject this proposal, and for a pair of proposals to be submitted next.

  • One that swaps a European node into another subnet, while swapping an appropriate non-European node out
  • A second proposal that swaps that non-European node into this subnet

I think it’s clear that this is what should be considered best practise. In the context of a decentralised, trustless system such as the IC NNS, the community needs to rely on best practises being adhered to, and less so on trust and/or authoritative pushback on the forum.


At the end of the day, there’s no reason to violate the IC target topology. Can you agree that violating the IC target topology (in the way that this proposal does) is unnecessary? Would you therefore also open up to the idea that this proposal needs rejecting to help set a best practice standard for the future? :innocent:

1 Like