I think the point has been made on both our sides. So you hear it from me:
**Oops, not enough enough people participated in the Tzip process, letās inject a competing proposal and asset to poll bakers who may have missed this. **
Every proposal is opinionated, thereās no precedent here.
Sure. As stated above, I think achieving consensus on whether this is a good idea is useful, as opposed to springing to immediate action. I think yolo-injecting another proposal before reaching consensus is probably a net negative move that causes thrash and confusion.
I donāt think having monolithic tightly coupled proposals is a good idea - but that is a debate we as a community can have another day.
If you donāt like the proposal, make another one, you have more than enough technical know-how to do so.
Iāve asked some questions above about how to inject the proposal. My original post stated that I was happy to help put in the work to get this done.
You chose instead to present this as an ominous, power-consolidating, precedent-setting move by āthe powers that beā.
I think my original post states this quite well and clearly lays out the concerns I have as well as a path to remediation. I think my posts here stand on their own and readers can reach their own conclusions - if your personal opinion is that Iām misrepresenting the situation, that is your right.
I do think the process around this proposal consolidates power away from bakers and sets a bad precedent. Iāve stated why extensively above so I wonāt repeat here and I donāt think these are wrong opinions to have.
By creating this confrontational framing, youāve engineered a no-win situation where the development teams involved in this either donāt inject new proposals and are thus insensitive to āthe demands of the communityā (even though comments on the choice of assets were requested for the past 5 months), or they do, in which case they give the appearance that they were up to something nefarious until you bravely called them up on it.
I donāt think that Iāve implied anyone is doing anything nefarious. I do think the easy win here is for additional protocols to get injected but I donāt think doing so admits any wrong doing or nefariousness on anyoneās part. Everyone here is human, humans sometimes make mistakes and sometimes people are working with different mental models / information.