I just wanted to throw my 2p in here.
I completely agree diversity of thought on the mgrc is beneficial. In seeking this all I ask is not to mess with:
1 - Inclusion, this is the only mechanism I can see to obtain diversity through democracy.
If someone was to stand for the mgrc they should not have reveal an unnecessary amount of personal information about themselves so others can judge me on these arbitrary characteristics that they have no control over to decide if their thoughts will be diverse enough
2 - Democracy itself. If you want to try to force this then you are going to have to use a mechanism outside of democracy otherwise you cannot guarantee people will pass your arbitrary diversity requirements for selecting a board.
To somehow corrupt the democratic process in this goal is unacceptable, just replace it with a non democratic option.
3 - Disregarding merit in favour of arbitrary characteristics.
Having different thoughts and opinions based off life experience is a good thing. This should not trump the ability of someone to perform in that role.
and just because this has come up elsewhere
Why was the switch made to approval voting? it was mean to be 1 cap member 5 votes. Maybe the zfnd can let us know.
Regarding diversity of this MGRC, my main area of concern is lack of technical knowledge of the protocol. I am unsure how they are going to review these sorts of proposals.