I’d like to discuss the idea of incorporating patch versions and bugfixes for proposals into the on-chain governance process.
For example, with the current Hangzhou proposal, a critical issue was found during testing. Now bakers will most likely have to use Octez’s “User Activated Protocol Override” mechanism in order to implement the Hangzhou upgrade.
This method works, more or less, but in the spirit of on chain governance would it not be better to formally incorporate patch versions into the government process?
For example: during the exploration phase, protocol upgrade H is found to have a critical bug. During the cooldown phase, a new proposal is allowed to be injected that then progresses through it’s own round of voting and testing, and assuming the patch gets voted in, the original protocol upgrade is implemented simultaneously along with the agreed upon patch.
The “patch protocol governance process” could be a streamlined subset of the regular governance process, maybe just an exploration phase, cooldown/testing phase, and final vote phase. We could recursively repeat this “patch protocol governance process” ad infinitum if more issues are found during the testing of those patches.
This is one developers rough, back of the napkin idea, I’d love to hear the communities thoughts. I love the idea of putting as much of the governance process as we can on chain.