Second, tell me when in the governance history of the network have we had multiple choices when there wasn’t an identified bug involved?
It happened in Athens, Florence, Granada, Hangzhou, and Ithaca.
For Athens, the choice was about the roll size (see Nomadic Labs - Athens: Our Proposals for the First Voted Amendment). For Florence it was about Baking Accounts (see Nomadic Labs - Florence: Our Next Protocol Upgrade Proposal). For Granada it was about Liquidity Baking (see PsmarYW: Granada without liquidity baking) . For Hangzhou and Ithaca it was about the asset used in Liquidity Baking (see Hangzhou (PsCUKj6wy) and Ithaca ‘Ipanema’ (PteJgr89X) which both propose to replace twBTC by USDtz).
The injections have always been either take it or leave it, and if you want something different, well then go make it happen.
To me “take it or leave it” is the opposite of “if you want something different, well then go make it happen” and neither describes well the situation because both assume a fundamental separation between devs and stakeholders.
First, no code is written unless someone wants something different, obviously.
Second, amendments are co-signed by several entities, these are developer teams and sometimes individual developers. The list changes very often because joining the group is easy and does not require a long-term commitment.
Third, the onchain vote is the very end of the development of a protocol feature. Discussions on where we want Tezos to go should happen much earlier. Anyone who “wants something different” should first have it discussed on this forum.
