Thanks for the transparency on the iteration process. I’m supportive of this direction.
As someone who voted consistently and participated in the earlier DIP program, I found DIP 2.0 genuinely confusing and stepped back from active participation because the rules were hard to follow. The previous version also created an unintended problem where it incentivized discussions for the sake of discussion rather than meaningful engagement.
This approach, focusing on voting participation with clear barriers to entry, makes it easier to understand what’s expected and how to qualify.
On the retrospective question: I could go either way, but given we’re only looking at November, I think it’s reasonable to move forward with recognition for that period. I wouldn’t support going back further than that as it would add complexity.
Hope this helps. Thanks again for surfacing and to all of the people that have worked on putting this new structure together.