I’m not sure it is possible to communicate the HF date this time as the decision was made that it will happen as soon as consensus reached (because had been delayed and delayed and delayed).
Is this a sound process? Nay.
No, because transparency matters and information is gold. To those who read, at least.
Yes, because that’s how consensus works on the more core level.
This time not much “law” changes, with the exception of the 30 days witness voting lock on VP power, and as an aside almost the conversion of the DAO stake which starts. But beyond that, it’s mostly an optimization update. One of little interest to most. One following “code is law” (super majority met means fork that sh*t). And maybe for this type of upgrade that’s the more apt model.
... on the blockchain, I believe that everyone who should know something and it is their responsibility
I agree with this. It is both the voters’ and witnesses’ task to inform, the onus in this type of society probably more on the voters even. Should you know? No, not necessarily but if you give two flying fraks about what rules govern your presence then maybe you should occasionally do some homework. Should we expect everyone to be able to dig through the code and discover the date when a HF is supposed to happen? Not everyone but maybe in a decentralized society this is one of those where many could discover (and build that countdown) and maybe should do just that.
Clearly we live and operate in a “dual citizenship” society where there’s users and those who codify the magic. Informing is a great exercise for those who code, should be a must for those who decide to run that code and depend on votes from the users — who are also owners. But maybe in this early stage (still) that ownership also requires a degree of pro activity. Just like the more traditional stakeholder will make a better (hopefully) yearly vote if they informed themselves more than just with each quarterly report and the highly polished AGM talks.