I would add the need for a documented plan for how to deal with unexpected behavior. What constitutes cause for a rollback? What level of "just wait and hope it fixes itself" is appropriate? We should hash that out before the fork so that we aren't stuck with it afterward.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I think such a plan is something the witnesses should come up with. In my pledge I do just that:
So I will have a plan to roll back changes and will communicate that with other witnesses. Best case we never need to roll back ;)
I think those are two different things. You have a plan for how to roll back, which is great and necessary. But we need an explicit plan for making the decision to roll back as well.
If 99% of users can't interact and 80% of the voting power disappeared, should we roll back? I think if we asked that question last week, virtually everyone would have said yes. Instead it was only asked after it happened, so we didn't get a rollback.
I think such a decision would happen organically if all witnesses have a plan. Just as any other hard fork decision happens.