The pDAO ratify everything that goes live. If they feel strongly that this or any RPIP should not go live we cannot release it and it would be removed.
I apologise if it feels like a 2-tier system. That is clearly not the intention. The team have been talking openly about these features for months. We didn’t expect to have push back on them.
From our perspective, RPIP-30 was not certain to be ratified - @Valdorff has done an excellent job of building consensus but we were not aware of how positive the sentiment was for the change. Clearly we need to pay more attention but even still we were not sure how the vote would go. Hence why we didn’t start development work on it. Also the audits for Houston had to be booked in and they are literally the monday after the vote is closed. We were already rushed to get feature complete we did not have time to include RPIP-30 as well. We will of course get RPIP-30 (and RPIP-28) into a release as early as we can.
I agree with both of you.
We try very hard to make sure our communication is mindful of the governance process but we haven’t always got it right. The process is evolving and feedback like this is extremely important. The team are dedicated to making this work, most of the friction is caused by assumptions and grey areas, which as the process improves will be resolved. It isn’t an easy process to get right. From our side, I will continue to work on a unified process with the community.
The most important thing is that we maintain this collaborative relationship. I see Rocket Pool as a whole. There are dynamics between the team and pDAO but I do believe we have made significant progress and will continue to do so.