We’re way short on engaging with the community here, as we’re going straight from proposal to voting
I believe the consensus in the prior threads was that we should aim for a minimal governance change to loosen eligibility and encourage new people to run for the SC, and then run an election with that change in place. The 18-month requirement in particular has been brought up as a significant hurdle to recruiting new members, so I’m proposing we get rid of it.
You seem to be aware of that context, so I’m unsure why you’re coming in so aggressively against it here and now.
I asked for any changes you’d want to see ahead of elections. James, you’ve never even just acknowledged the emails.
For a while, every time someone tried to start a private forum or email thread with the SC I would point out that the SC’s business is to be conducted in public. These days I’ve largely given up on trying to remind folks about that and so I just participate in public.
This new proposal is inappropriate on its own, but even moreso due to you presenting it in that early elections thread as a preamble to getting on with voting. I don’t think any of this should need explaining.
Again: it seemed clear that the consensus in earlier threads was as summarized in this post: enact the minimal DEP change to loosen up requirements, and run an election focused on getting new people involved who can then tackle the larger problem of how to properly reform the technical governance.
For convenience’s sake, and to avoid further fractured discussion, I’m also going to respond to your other post here.
Seriously? That’s not per the DEP 10 voting process
As we’ve covered in prior threads, the current state of the SC means that until all of us have voted no vote closes. It’s unfortunate, but it’s where we are due to the fact that we didn’t recruit enough people last election.
you yourself shot that down and made plain the obvious risk that “currently each of us effectively has a veto”
I pointed out the risk, and also have consistently said that I don’t think adding a fifth member to the current group is going to be the solution we need. I have been extremely consistent in saying we need to enact a minimal eligibility change and run a full election, and at this point I don’t think it should be surprising that I’m trying to actually get that done.
I also think your approach and tone have been unnecessarily aggressive and have shown a tendency to needlessly escalate, and I’d ask you to reflect on that.