Could this be considered a substantial improvement to the ranking conditions relative to this proposal? It looks that way to me on the surface:
Ive recently started a Pool, very enthousiastic but also interested in the extent of this problem, as there is clearly no real incentive to dissuade people to create multiple pools or an in-formula way of preventing that from happening.
Where can we back these ICP’s?
Bas @ STAYK
Each CIP, if you look at this one for instance:
… has a link to a discussion thread. In this case, you can see the
Comments-URI: links back to this page. So in theory you should be able to make supportive comments here and they can be used as evidence of a CIP’s priority to the community.
However, based on my experience with another CIP supporting stake decentralisation, there’s no assurance that the developers at the Cardano agencies take forum postings into account at all, nor even read these threads (they definitely don’t respond unless it’s about something they’ve already decided to work on).
You can follow the corresponding developer discussions by finding the “pull request” for the CIP, in which the CIP editors consider merging the proposal into their official list: for instance, this PR link already posted above.
PR comments are supposed to be between participating developers, but since there’s no confirmation they read the forums you can back the proposals there. Just keep in mind we need to keep the CIP discussions on GitHub clear of noise, with comments concise and related to development issues or on the priority of the proposed Rationale and the needs of the community.
Clear and concise answer, makes sense indeed. ill keep reading to stay informed.
thanks so much
Bas @ STAYK Pool