I can't help but echo the comments from greg_colvin, peter_szilagyi and others, regarding the "nastiness" of #Ethereum ACD decision making on EIP-2315. (1/8)

It's really hard to point at a clean example on an #Ethereum ACD decision where I can say -- the governance process is working really well. It's really easy to find many many examples on ACD decisions where people can easily say -- the governance process is broken. (2/8)

Probably the most worrying thing is self-conflicting ACD decision makings. Remember ProgPoW? It was rejected nearly purely because many devs think it's controversial. While in EIP-1559 Fee Market, it's included despite its controversy in the miner community. (3/8)

This was not the only example. Similar thing happened in EIP-1344, which was included despite some technical objections in its design. On the other hand, many of us thought EIP-2315 was doing well addressing its technical issues, until the last minute when it was rejected. (4/8)

The lack of self-consistency primarily hurts community trust. A pressing question is -- how do you expect the #Ethereum mining community to trust ACD's decisions on EIP-1559 Fee Market, when ACD often contradicts itself? (5/8)