Ok, 3 years and not 4 years. I remember that i ask so far at least once for shorter election intervals (about 1 year ago) and you answered that it’s not for discussion and don’t plan to change this. (I have to dig it out which could take some time having in mind my huge post count).
And than i made Proposal & Possible Changes in the Foundation Governance as i think it’s more than not optimal, to say it diplomaticly, that ZF board members are as well share holders in the ECC, same goes now for ZF advisors and/or now/future employees/advisors. The connection is too tight in my opinion, hence a 3rd entity with no ties would be structural very different from the ZF.
Now see it from a point of view outside the ECC and ZF, for example my point of view:
What do we have right now?
The ECC, with unclear shareholders, a for profit company with limited accountability and transparency. At the same time a ZF close tied with the ECC as ZF board members are shareholders at the ECC. Both are the ZIP editors and ZIP voters. Both, at least for my taste are discussing, approving and allocating their own funds/wages/whatever.
Means in short, if we talk about “ripe to be gamed” you should as well, at least in my opinion, have in mind that the ECC and ZF “inter-connections” could be seen as such as well. But in this case the community would/is be gamed.