I’m jumping into the discussion a bit late, but I wanted to share my thoughts on the election - no election topic. Generally, I’m all for elections and democratic principles as they are fundamental to decentralized governance. However, I think it’s also important to consider the context and specifics of the situation. And I agree with @JoJo on this.
The initial proposal mentioned that elections would be held for the second phase. But sometimes, to truly understand if certain choices are effective or not, you need to be in the process and see things unfold. I believe that while elections are a fundamental principle, continuity is also a key factor. Elections should only take place if they are truly beneficial in the given context. As @Immutablelawyer pointed out, holding new elections could lead to bureaucratic overhead and an inefficient use of resources due to the electoral process and the onboarding of new members.
In this case, I think continuity is crucial for achieving the established goals effectively. This is why, I believe that re-electing the current members directly would be the best course of action.
However, it’s important that this issue has been raised because it needs to be addressed when the proposal goes to Snapshot. It’s crucial to get community consensus on modifying the election process for the second phase, should the proposal be approved. But I’ve read that this last point has already been taken into consideration, so I guess that we will see it in the next steps on Snapshot.