Noting that there’s also a GitHub issue for this discussion here. Let’s try to keep the conversation in one place (this forum thread) for clarity’s sake.
There’s a lot here, I’ll try and address each point, some from my own perspective as a participant in the process and some from my perspective as an AGP Editor.
We went from having around 20 APG PRs to 3.
(Actually, four AGPs made it through: mine, ChainSafe’s, and two of @anteater’s)
What is the process to “finalize” a proposal? This was never specified.
“Finalize” means to make any remaining changes that you want to get your proposal into a final state (exactly what will be voted on the ballot) and as AGP-1 says, “request to move the proposal to Stage V before Stage V is scheduled to begin”. This request has historically been done as a comment on the PR that says something like “this proposal is final, please move it to Stage V”.
There were not even attempts to make such a request for the proposals whose PRs were closed, via any channel or in any way, nor any requests for clarification about this by authors prior to the PRs being closed, and so it can be unambiguously said that they either did not follow the process or expected their proposal to be withdrawn. Either way, closing the PRs was a legitimate move.
Note that this is not new: finalization has been required in every past vote, and has not been an issue until now. I would be interested to hear reasons why it has suddenly become an issue, but am reluctant to accept that it’s because the process is not clear or “specified” because 1) it is definitely specified in the part of AGP-1 quoted in the closed PRs, and 2) if it weren’t clear, I would think this would have come up as an issue before.
I therefore don’t see this as a good reason for pushing back every stage of ANV-4.
In addition to confusion surrounding the process itself, AA put in the bulk of their comments/feedback less than 24 hours before the vote!
Their reviews were as much a surprise to me as everyone else. Given the timing of the provisional review, it’s hard to say whether they were more helpful (because those who were paying attention had time to adjust their proposals), harmful (because those who weren’t paying attention were left wondering what to do with the comments on short notice), or neutral (authors could have simply ignored the comments).
In any case, the AA was not required to issue a provisional review and in my opinion it was better to have it than not at all. I therefore don’t see this as a good reason for pushing back every stage of ANV-4.
In addition to all that, the process of submitting GitHub PRs broke.
This was a weird issue, one I had never seen before in all my years of using GitHub. It’s still unclear if something “broke” on GitHub or if this was a user error. I did not experience the issue myself. I created a support ticket with GitHub earlier this week to get more information about what happened, and have not heard back about this yet.
I think the GitHub issue is unfortunate, but unless the proposal was submitted last minute, it was a solvable issue (as evidenced by the action I took to correct the issue for several proposals). With that said, assuming this was indeed a GitHub bug and not user error, this is the issue most outside of any of our control, and I think it did affect the productivity of several AGP authors, and so this issue may be a good reason to push back every stage of ANV-4.
(Aside: this is possibly also another data point in favor of moving the Aragon community off of GitHub..)
I have my own issues with this ANV that I will air here: I was actually planning on voting “no” on every proposal except my AGP-89 proposal to change the Fiscal Year schedule, as a protest vote, because I am not happy that AGP-61 was not accepted onto the ballot in ANV-3. This rejection by the AA resulted in ANV-4 happening during what I know to be a very busy month in the lives of many active community members (Devcon, Asia tour, extensive personal travel plans, etc). I don’t know if all of this busy-ness played a role in the mistakes made in this ANV but I’m sure for some it did not help. I can speak for myself and say I certainly would have preferred more bandwidth to give the AGP process more attention.
All that said I have not yet made up my mind about whether or not I would support a proposal in an emergency vote to push back every stage of ANV-4. In part because if AGP-89 is approved then the next vote will only be two months from now and (with all due respect to the AGP authors whose PRs were closed) I don’t think any of the closed proposals are urgent enough to disrupt the current schedule. However an argument could be made that the benefit of pushing back every stage is worth the cost of executing an emergency vote and possibly disrupting the vote schedule; I just haven’t seen that argument or good reasons to support it. As I said, I am undecided on this.