The proposal rests on item 1. Article 2.6.1 only allows an Emergency Supervisor “If there has been an Adverse Event”, and item 1 asks Terra governance to recognize “the persistent 2–2 Stewardship deadlock” as one. The record doesn’t show that.
* A272 got 2 yes votes out of 4 (Philipp and MB yes, Rose no, Vini didn’t vote), short of the 75% every proposal needs. Article 3.1.3.2(c) requires that threshold for any Board action through the multisig, so “the majority decides” doesn’t apply, and 2 of 4 isn’t a majority anyway.
* Since A272 opened, all 11 proposals have reached the threshold, including steward pay and liquidity moves. Vini voted yes on 9 of them.
* No proposal in 283 has ever split 2-2. Failures are normal under a 3-of-4 threshold: 14 of the 271 proposals before A272 failed.
Item 1 relies on the part of the definition covering anything materially adverse to the Foundation’s ability to perform its duties, “including without limitation any persistent deadlock or dysfunction of any Body”. One failed removal vote, while everything else passes, is the threshold doing its job. If the proposal rests on something else, such as the negligence post 5 alludes to, it should say so and set out the evidence. If the real question is who sits on the Board, Terra governance can be asked that directly, as Vini suggested.