As a contributor from day one, I appreciate and echo the calls for increased transparency, and hope that these newly-clarified roles and responsibilities can be implemented in a way that addresses this. I also appreciate the concerns that those voting against have voiced... and I know these concerns come from a place of truly wanting to see the DAO succeed and achieve the greatest possible collective good.
At the same time, I do not share all of these concerns or hold an absolutist view about how our beloved organization ought to be structured and operated. I feel decentralization is an ideal to aspire to, and a continuum. Not every project will require or thrive with the same type of governance, and more than anything I want Klima to find its "right fit"... which on the surface at least seems to be the intention of this KIP and of the "Decentralization Roadmap" project.
That being said, I think the proposal as it stands is lacking some clarity around the "problem definition" and would like to see the specific issues this formalization of the "status quo" is designed to solve spelled out more clearly in the final KIP. Likewise, there are no "roles & responsibilities" spelled out for internal contributors and I would like to see some formalization of processes for contributors and community to have their voices heard beyond ongoing KIPs. How, when and where will contributors and community be heard?
With these limitations of the proposal, I'm still comfortable casting my vote in support as I feel this formalization of roles and making our journey and process of decentralization explicit via the roadmap (hopefully similar to our APY reduction roadmap) are both positive developments.