I'm pretty against the idea of making any changes to how the coin works.
I hear you. But the first question that needs answering is "should we have a vote to decide this?"
I'm not asking how you would vote, but whether we should vote. Lots of people say "we should leave it how it is", but that's one of the options in the vote. I don't see anyone (with the possible exception of BAC) directly saying "we should overrule what the majority wants and try to force an unpopular rule set on the majority".
First we need to be clear about
whether this is a democracy, and if it is then we can make a list of the candidates and start voting for them.
If it isn't then I guess we carry on as before, and just have xploited and creative change the rules however and whenever they like. I don't see that as a better system to be honest, and I don't think they do either. Although it would be nice if they would chime in and say what they think about how CLAM governance should be working.
Minor changes can easily go to a vote process but core changes to the coin how could it be fair to even suggest voting on it? Who would get to vote? How many people would not know a vote occurred? What percentages would be considered acceptable? is it even fair to consider changing core rules when so many have invested on the notion that they can't or wont be changed? none of these questions sound good and it will cause the same problem btc is having with bp101. In this case the whole slippery slope argument is pretty valid.