There-in lies the root of the problem. Just as Watts=Volts*Amps, Power = Choice/Liability. To have separation of (or sharing of) power, one must also have separation/sharing of liability. That doesn't exist in any way right now.

Separation of powers works in government because each branch has limited power over the next. That power includes both choice and liability. If there were no repercussions for one branch taking the other out, it would happen all the time. (And in some countries where that's true, it does happen, regularly.) When either component approaches 0, you're in a world of hurt.

Right now, Board holds all the liability, and most of the "choice". The demand is that choice be given to GA, or Council, or tech staff, or some other body, which has no ability to take on legal liability. The concern is that if that happens, nobody will want to be on Board (or e.V., or whatever form the legal liability holders take).

Ultimately, the community can decide what it wants. But reality is if you setup a system where those expected to take on risk and liability have little to no say in what that risk level is, you won't get many (or any) takers, and the whole project will fail. That's the razor edge we've been traveling for the past two years or so now, and why turn over in HiFo was as rampant as it was. (And in part, why I left.)