# Evolving Algorand Governance

**URL:** <https://forum.algorand.co/t/evolving-algorand-governance/6646>\
**Category:** Governance Discussions\
**Tags:** defi\
**Created:** [May 3, 2022, 6:58pm UTC](https://forum.algorand.co/t/evolving-algorand-governance/6646 "2022-05-03T18:58:49Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 202

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![hank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f475e1/32.png) [@hank](https://forum.algorand.co/u/hank)\
**Post date:** [June 1, 2022, 11:21pm UTC](https://forum.algorand.co/t/evolving-algorand-governance/6646/202 "2022-06-01T23:21:04Z")

</div>

I think there needs to be a serious re-evaluation of everyone’s role at the Foundation who was involved in finalizing measure #1 option A. There’s plenty of discussions around how potentially detrimental the option itself could be, but not enough concern about how it could even pass deliberations to begin with. It’s not something we should overlook as simply the worse of the two options. It shows a very worrisome level of negligence and poor thought process. This is a cut-throat space in which we should not settle for anything but the best, and therefore we should not allow the same people to continue having an influence at the Foundation, especially in areas which they clearly do not have a firm understanding of.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.algorand.co/t/evolving-algorand-governance/6646)._