Probably useful to preemptively add a line about an upcoming future vote deciding upon the terms & compensations of directors. At least a few people will wonder this, as some of us already did. I wanted to have this in the initial draft but never got around to it.
I suggested that we replace the above (and also put it in [EP6.1], to read in its entirety:
Note: Nominees need not vote. Their votes will be cast for themselves as a redundancy measure unless they affirmatively choose to cast their votes for another nominee.
Please consider redelegating your votes, if you believe someone more informed than you on this topic would best represent your interests. Here is a link detailing members’ ENS activity, it is just a tool that might assist you: delegates leaderboard (Thanks to @mmurthy for putting this together).
Replaced instances of “cost” with “cast.” I could not find a clear instance of a typographical error regarding “in.”
Inserted the revised Note, excluding nominee voting recommendation and the reference to Karma pending clarification that we want to provide this third party resource in our official proposal. No offense to @mmurthy, but considering the weight of this proposal, I want to ensure impartiality. Lmk.
mmurthy addressed all our issues and pulled data from our system. At no time did he express a preference as to what data to include or object to our suggested changes, which he, in fact, adopted.
From the final version, it appears to accurately portray those members whose activity would be expected to be high.
I would also add that in the initial version I was ranked third, which was too high, and through our discussion in a separate thread, we (community) deleted some factors and adjusted the weight of other factors to better represent member contributions.
@berrios.eth I added the link to the delegation leaderboard on both proposals.
@nick.eth considering the unused Ether set aside for covering re-redelegation fees, I suggest extending the reimbursement period to the duration of the forthcoming proposals as long is it is practical to do so. (Disregard this suggestion. Thank you for the clarification, I momentarily forgot about the Snapshot window.)
I sincerely want to vote Against removing @brantly.eth as justified prior Removing brantly.eth as a Community Steward - #13 by drhus but seeing him using his 363K ENS Delegated votes (which was delegated to him in completely different context) to vote Against the removal (and not Abstain) and to his own personal benefit, put me off my balance! to me that is the explicit abuse of power.
EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION: Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you. We raised the point, in a prior thread, that the nominees should not abstain, because to do so would disenfranchise those who support them. Their delegators had the option for weeks to redelegate their votes, something we continually reminded the community.