I don’t have time to map out properly but the principle component of your argument can be partitioned into 3
People
Commitment / Contribution / Competence
You desire thresholds for commitment beyond just monetary value of holding UNI … What are the signals?
uneasy prioritizing new delegates who recently got involved in governance
contribution - this is a trust issue which can be addressed via understudies, promotion of individual delegates to their own distinct platform, or allow prior experience in other AMMs to count. This is observable but takes time …
Competency is measurable … And upskilling courses exist such as MBAs modules on asset allocation or duties of independent director/trustee. It may be that part of the understudy component is subsidised training for the role of full participation. It may be that unsuccessful seats go into a random draw for observer status so you build up a pool of institutional knowledge despite the lack of social trust or commitment.
Platforms
Philosophy / Performance / Participation
Delegates would have certain philosophies or belong to different schools of economic thought from degens to crypto-anarchists. Whilst you don’t want to head towards political infighting, you do want ideas to bubble up … Perhaps some language to point out that non-traditional approaches are not a barrier so long as rational and willingness to engage in evidence-based reasoning
Tracking the performance of delegates and scorecard for delegations may be an automated process if suitable metrics are sought. Frankly, some of the proposals can be rather technical or complex so having some clue as to policy positions act as short-cut to digesting the details.
Development - focused platforms … So since the temp check is that certain groups (eg Devs) are underrepresented perhaps revisit the original presumption that UNI awarded to employees of Uniswap Labs be excluded be reconsidered? For example 5 year cliff, means UNI vested 5 years ago become delegate able or ex-employee, waivers granted. Technical directions or desired projects akin to existing “positions”. This starts bringing in the 20% which so far have been ineligible to vote but are savvy and may want to switch from a technical to business track.
Process
selection, election, rejection
Points raised re how selected/elected, criteria for retention, mechanism for removal. These are all details to be debated to get the desired balance between stable continuity and fresh blood. Obviously the treasury working group have examined other DAOs so there should be some clue as to good practices elsewhere.