You had discussions in private, yet omitted responses to your points in this public post. There is overwhelming evidence for the need of VC structure with orderly and specific chain of command. There is little evidence that supports your ideals.
The proposal wasn’t rushed. There has been dialogue for months. And even when final draft was posted, there remained 20 days to review before voting.
You propose addressing the lack of community involvement by relying on it even more than before. A key issue is that community doesn’t do the work necessary. I don’t blame them, it is a lot of work. NCF is always on the lookout for qualified volunteers, but as I’ve said before, 99% go inactive and aren’t interested in putting forth the effort.
Where is all this feedback that hasn’t been addressed?
By your logic, proposing CarbonClick while being the self nominated president would also be a conflict of interest.
Foundation is separate entity from NCF.
Elephant in the room is as big or small as you want to make it. I’ve chosen to not to further address some of the slander. This is actually an example of how community involvement can have negative influence. Did you do due diligence before forming your judgments?
Lastly, if you are a big de-centralist, especially as it pertains to investment - ICO is for you. What better model would satisfy your ideals?