I wanted to create a space to discuss this and discuss potential solutions.
@ml_sudo pointed to the design of the vote as a potential issue, and I think we might have to look there.
If I’m thinking about this correctly, right now, to vote for a certain type of diversity, you’d have to reduce your say over the candidates who don’t contribute to that diversity. Another way to put it is, there’s no way for ZCAP voters to express a preference over the collective make-up of the panel, while also expressing a preference over the individual make-up.
If others agree that this is a problem, I think we should propose some mechanisms to address it, and ask the ZCAP to vote on adding one or more mechanisms before the next election.
I see this as a serious failure in the process, but I also recognize how difficult it was to bootstrap the MGRC, and I’m inclined to chalk this up to growing pains and a lesson learned. But I’m not the one most affected by this failure and in some ways I’m benefiting from it, so it would be great to hear from others on how we should see this and what options are on the table!
Also, to be super clear, I’m not so sure we should impose diversity requirements beyond what ZCAP voters themselves prefer, but I think we should at least give ZCAP voters a way of expressing their preference. (For example, @jmsjsph, if you believe that geographic diversity is the most important thing, you could express that preference in your vote.)