We would like to confirm; this means that no Chain Governor could block the upgrade process for the rest, correct?
How is this mitigated with interoperability? In principle, chains that fall behind with an old version should be disconnected since the state transition of all involved is at risk.
This process initially seems to have the same level of importance as a typical protocol upgrade audit. Is it expected to treat it as such? Is it expected to cover those in conjunction with third-party security teams? It would be great if these followed a report format for public knowledge.