Those "loopholes" people mentioned are still there, with the addition of at least one new one.
Hm. Maria, an easier-to-read diff like the one Laurentius made for the proposal, would be most welcome.
For each of these loopholes, could you be explicit about the intent, and whether or not the new apparent loophole is desired, or a bug to be fixed?
* "As many as" eight community/affiliate seats -- under what conditions would there be fewer? Are there conditions where a term might expire or be vacated without replacement?
* No mention of voting -- just the promise of "a series of options [for] strong community processes to select representatives". How are these being developed / is there a long-list of potential options under consideration?
* The change from "majority community-selected" to "at least half community-selected" - intentional, and if so to what end?
* The loophole where "shall not appoint" still allows the Board to become minority community-selected - intentional, and if so to what end?
Warmly, SJ