What is this about?

The discussion revolves around establishing a structured process for Rocket Pool release processes, which encompasses Technical Design Generation, Release Content, and Release Ratification. The goal is to foster transparency, autonomy, and expandability within the Rocket Pool ecosystem. The process includes creating bounties and RPIPs for technical designs, planning release content based on ratified technical designs, and a final ratification step where the release is voted on by the pDAO and oDAO before implementation.

How is the community reacting?

Community members are actively engaged in providing feedback on the proposed processes. Concerns about potential slowdowns due to the requirement of full technical specifications before feature consideration and the complexity of categorizing changes have been raised. Discussions also touch on the timing of release ratification and the need to keep the process minimal and purposeful. There is a consensus on using an abstract cost unit for feature designs and considering the autonomy of the release team in relation to the DAO's wishes.

Prose11 discussed the challenges and strategies for achieving decentralization within Rocket Pool, focusing on operational consistency and iterative decision-making⁴. LongForWisdom addressed concerns about potential slowdowns, suggesting that more extensible structures could improve throughput and that minor or urgent changes could be handled outside of major releases⁵. The necessity of repeating justifications for features in release RPIPs was debated, with LongForWisdom emphasizing the need for transparency and the opportunity for the pDAO to point out flaws or ask questions⁵.

LongForWisdom and Valdorff introduced a new process for release-content ratification, proposing an informational RPIP to be presented by release teams before starting implementation work⁶. This RPIP would not require a vote unless the pDAO decides to challenge the release contents with a challenge RPIP⁶. The process aims to prevent unnecessary votes, save time, provide clearer feedback, foster trust, and not bind the release team to specific contents⁶.

Why this is positive?

• The proposed processes aim to maintain transparency, autonomy, and expandability in Rocket Pool's development.
• Continuous engagement with the community through discussions and feedback helps refine the processes.
• The use of a living informational RPIP that is updated continuously with technical specifications and scores can help in prioritizing and planning releases effectively.
• The autonomy of the release team to work on projects they choose can lead to innovation and calculated risks that benefit the protocol.
• The balance of power and trust between the release team and the DAO can lead to more informed decisions and a stronger relationship.
• The new process for release-content ratification can prevent unnecessary votes and save time while providing clearer feedback and fostering trust.

Why this is negative?

• Requiring full technical specifications before considering features might slow down the release process.
• Categorizing complex changes that span multiple areas can be challenging and may complicate the release planning.
• The timing of release ratification could potentially delay the implementation of features if not aligned properly with the development stages.
• The assumption that DAO priorities can be inferred solely from discussions is flawed, which is why quantifiable measures like votes are necessary to accurately gauge DAO opinion.

Next actions

We have not been able to determine the next actions.