I think the concept that a dissenting committee member must explain their justification is generally a good feature.
However, I do think it might be more transparent and easier on the committee members and delegates if the committee recommendation comes with (i) case for, (ii) case against, (iii) committee majority recommendation, and (iv) disclosure of committee members that vote contrary to the majority.
If cases for and against are both presented and dissenting committee members disclose their dissent, I don’t personally think that a separate rundown or explanation of that delegates specific reasons for dissent need to be called out as justifications should be adequately represented in the case for and case against framework. It’s nuanced, but to me that still feels like a more united committee communication vs a dissenting voter being required to break from the group and write a separate thread.
It would be cool if the committee can state plus and minuses, yin and yang about proposals without actually giving a direct recommendation. Let the delegates make their own perceptive with help of the committee’s in depth analysis.
Other DeFi committees are also good but I must choose the best one for the OP ecosystem so I will give a for to this committee, I know Katie Garci and Linda Xie well, read about others they also seen as qualified.
Note really sure how I should vote here. I am favoring abstaining at the moment as I already voted for another DeFi proposal (C). I don’t have anything against this proposal, and the members also seem capable but I guess I should only vote for 1 out of the 3 DeFi committees unless I misunderstood the process.