If everyone decided to put forward counter proposals instead of coordinating on drafts at hand, we’ll be here all our lives going through proposals. I’ll leave it at that; this proposal is through anyway.
I don’t understand your obsession with paying lip service to accountability by including the word, rather than actually being accountable. As Alisha points out, the rules provide accountability, not saying the word. If you believe there’s a lack of actual accountability, that’s one thing, but this seems like pointless bikeshedding.
Having first-hand worked on and having experienced the drafting of at least two IPCC reports, the lesson was that presence of a keyword in one iteration leads to expansion on that word in the next. If you think the new proposal adds to accountabiity, then I rest my case, because it doesn’t. Reducing the number of stewards does not lead to accountability; putting accountability conditions explicitly in the rules leads to accountability. To repeat myself, the new set of rules do not add any more accountability to the equation than the previous set in my view; adding another way of removing the stewards is not a meaningful accountability measure since such a vote will likely never be taken by a group of ‘yes men’. I apologise for the lip service but I will stop now. I have no intentions to further prolong everyone’s suffering in this discussion.