Having a clear list of eligible candidates makes the process much easier to follow. I appreciate that becoming a nominee no longer requires a long forum post. Moving to a criteria-based selection with a simple opt-in is a solid improvement.
That said, after reviewing the list of candidates, I still prefer to vote on nominees rather than leave the final selection to randomness. The pool isn’t large enough to create uncertainty about who’s best suited for the role, though perhaps that’s just my perspective as someone deeply involved in governance.
One open question: If this vote doesn’t pass, does the process revert to the previous system, or will the Foundation iterate based on feedback? I don’t want to block experimentation with governance design, but I do want to ensure the most competent contributors are the ones managing the Milestone & Metrics multisig and tracking grant performance.