the procedure has been followed.
Bakers not engaging in discussion in early stage means procedures were not followed.
bakers and users do read documentation.
In that thread is clear many do not.
Are you saying we should treat bakers as naïve users?
No, and I don’t think users are naïve, or if that condition implies something to change how I need to communicate with them, dismissing legit question because of that one guy or group is in a certain condition is a fallacy of thinking.
I do think trying to force other people actions is harder than adapting my own assumptions and actions.
We already know that we have to communicate around changes, and that protocol upgrades are critical, this is not new information. You don’t need to remind us of anything.
Again, this is not the way we can communicate without noise.
I was present here in December reading LB proposal, I didn’t write anything as I wrote in the other thread, and I understand what was wrong then and now, anyone can remind you something in any time, is in you if you take it or not. Like you did mentioning things over the past 2 years that I already knew.
taking time to learn about things and discussions is critical to the governance process,
Agreed, although, I’ve read at that time in both occasions, and for me, was not conclusive, the initial proposal received almost the same push back as backing accounts or similar.
As nobody stake as the user stakeholder or something similar here, maybe the devs couldn’t do a proper follow up. I don’t blame anyone, I’ve read comments not answered from both parties.
We can not do more than integrating what we expect to be in the bakers interests when no one comes to the public discussions
We can always improve, but for that first we need to recognize that we can be wrong.
