As a badgeholder who was not randomly selected to participate in the deliberation process, I read these things with a strong sense that I am missing out on really valuable context.
In future, I wish there could be a way to give all interested access to at least audit such processes. It feels to me like very important foundational work is being done here, and those of us who are not in the room where it happens will never know the full origin story.
Sometimes limiting discussions to smaller groups is unavoidable, of course, but given that only around 30 badgeholders are active enough to regularly vote on the ratification of token house decisions, might it not be possible to allow all those active people to participate in something like these deliberations (if and when they have the time and energy to do so)?
…I think that’s an incentive worth considering as it could benefit both individual badgeholders and the collective.
It’s hard to argue with a practice of inviting on a random basis, but it would be good to ensure that the most active participants actually get the chance to stay in the loop and build context for their participation. This would also be a way to strengthen the sense of belonging and citizenship for those who are so inclined.