I personally would not advocate for creating that type of governance culture, as it is especially prone to witch-hunts. Here’s a list of reasons why I don’t see the purpose of individual removal proposals:
- Councils are incentivized to remove council members rather than having all of their powers revoked. If they fail to remove bad actors, that should be indicative of their inability to perform their duties effectively. Thus, removing individuals is redundant if the removal of bad actors is part of the councils’ governance mandate (and it should be).
- The wider community lacks the same context that other council members within that environment would have to assess if the removal is just.
- Raising a public signaling proposal to remove a single individual within an organization is presuming guilt before a trial, and it will be permanently damaging to that individual’s reputation (regardless of whether they’ve committed a wrong-doing).
A counter-question: what is the primary purpose for expending the entire voting power of the hub (the attention capacity of which can be thought of as an expendable resource) on the removal of an individual from a council?
In a world with tens or hundreds of councils, individual council member removal proposals don’t seem sustainable or worthwhile, although it may be useful in a bootstrap period, but I would need to see strong responses to the points above before changing my own opinion.
That said, we should probably have a conversation about the election process. We don’t yet have sufficient tooling for something like that. We could do something similar to Osmosis canonical bridge run-off, but it’s not particularly elegant (though it works with our current tooling).