Reading time saved: 13 minutes
5 replies, 252 views, 6 likes
Rocket Pool is refining its release process to enhance transparency, autonomy, and scalability, involving community feedback and a structured approach to technical design and release ratification. While the new process aims to streamline decision-making and foster innovation, concerns about potential delays and the complexity of categorizing changes have been raised.
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.
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.
We have not been able to determine the next actions.
Posted 13 days ago
Last reply 5 days ago
Summary updated 5 days ago
Last updated 04/12 00:28