Some general points i’d like to add concerning the concept of government:
• More people voting doesn’t necessarily lead to better decisions. Democracy is a form of government where the majority gets to decide, it’s inherently neither good nor bad. If the majority wants a bucket of poop for breakfast, it’s a democratic vote, but in the end, people still “feast” on poop.
• Assuming only people having skin in the game (dn ops) being able to vote, there are multiple approaches and views on how to tackle a problem, for example the fee debate (bigger chunk of smaller pie vs smaller chunk of bigger pie, what nets us the biggest amount of cake?), so decisions likely won’t by unanimous. Will we roll with simple majority for general decisions, and “constitution level changes” requiring 2/3 majority+?
• Even people with skin in the game need a push to vote because it can be a burden, or simply they don’t care. Example, the one person running 34 (?) nodes and just ignoring rewards/not collecting them as he or she is just is too lazy to supply eth. Relying on votes, but too little people showing up to a vote, can be an issue too. When looking at other daos, I do have the feeling that participation in voting is rather low (but slowly gets better).
• If people are forced to vote (for example by losing their voting right for the next vote if they don’t actively participate in the governance process), this could lead to uninformed votes which are more driven by the fear of losing the voting right for a future proposal which might affect them, than the will to actively participate. Basically, people would log in, vote just for the sake of voting, and stop to care again.
• Now the issue with votes is, if you want people to vote (and actually want to accept what they are voting on, as else voting would be pointless), you can’t judge what an informed/uninformed decision is. Information isn’t distributed equally over all participants and probably will never be. You can only count on involved people to think through stuff and have the best intentions in mind (and publicly discussing their opinions and thoughts on why they prefer x over y). As some form of power balance check a voted in group of “senior node ops”, let’s call them “council of wise node ops” (or senate), with a higher vote count than 1 node = 1 vote, would make sense in my mind. If the general “node population” deems them “unfit for office”, “wise node ops” could be removed from this council.