Thank you for developing this thoughtful proposal.
While we generally agree with the proposed definitions, we feel that -
1 - There may be other reasons, e.g. #4, #5, etc. that appear over time, i.e. it’s difficult to capture all future possible reasons that NoWithVeto may be relevant.
2 - Regarding #3, rules of engagment, it’s not clear to us where these are laid out and who has approved or otherwise agreed that they are the canonical rules of engagment for the Cosmos hub. This seems to be a benefical project to take on, i.e. develop the rules and put them up for a vote.
With this as context, we will vote “Yes” for this proposal, as we see governance as an evolutionary process and this being a step in the right direction.
We do recognize that there may come a time when we choose to vote NoWithVeto that does not fit within the currently defined 3 categories. If that happens, it may signal a time to draft and submit a new proposal to revise the definition.
(We also note that is unfortunate proposals like this do ot receive more engagement via thoughtful and considered feedback via this forum, particularly from the larger (by stake) validators and specifically those within the Nakamoto Coefficient.)