What is this about?

The discussion revolves around RPIP-35, which proposes a shift from block-based to time-based Balance and RPL Price submissions. The proposal was initially brought up by Langers¹, but concerns were raised when Knoshua pointed out that the change had already been implemented in the Houston upgrade without a formal RPIP vote, leading to worries about a potential two-tier system for protocol changes². The community has been actively discussing the governance process, the influence of the team on vote outcomes, and the importance of clear communication and procedural transparency. Recently, Langers announced that RPIP-35 has been moved to Review and is now in preparation for finalization, inviting community members to provide any last feedback¹⁰.

How is the community reacting?

The community's reaction is varied. Some members, like Valdorff, argue that the proposal should be voted on by the pDAO and, if not ratified, should be removed from the Houston upgrade. They also acknowledge the perception of a two-tier system and call for improved communication and procedural enhancements³. Knoshua suggests that the proposal should be informational and highlights the need to tackle communication and procedural issues⁴. Langers, on behalf of the team, has apologized for any perception of a two-tier system and has pledged to work on a unified process with community input⁵. Despite these assurances, there are still concerns about the team's influence on the certainty of votes and the lack of transparency regarding features planned for the Houston upgrade^6,7. Valdorff has also reviewed the proposal and found it to be solid¹¹.

Why this is positive?

• The team is committed to establishing a unified governance process and seeks community feedback⁵.
• There is an acknowledgment of the importance of starting the RPIP process earlier for enhanced community collaboration and input^8,9.
• RPIP-35 has advanced to the Review stage, showing progress in the governance process and providing a chance for final community feedback¹⁰.

Why this is negative?

• The change was implemented without a formal RPIP vote, raising concerns about a two-tier system for protocol changes².
• The team's backing of certain RPIPs may influence the certainty of votes⁶.
• There was insufficient clear and early communication about the features planned for the Houston upgrade⁶.
• There is a perception that the team has a considerable impact on the outcome of votes⁷.

Next actions

Community members are encouraged to provide any last feedback on RPIP-35 as it has been moved to Review and is being prepared for finalization¹⁰. If a vote on RPIP-35 has not yet taken place, it should be considered as a next step to formalize the change.