Thanks for sharing your perspective!
As the original proposal laid out, it is up to the discretion of the grants committee if they want to make member changes during the pilot program:
Members may be replaced during the pilot program, for example, if they find they are not able to dedicate sufficient time to the program. We aim to be as transparent as possible and get feedback on the PoolTogether forum and Discord if there are any changes to the committee during the program. LINK
So that at least clarifies that there is room to make changes if changes are warranted. I think we should expect during a trial period we should find optimizations that we want to implement.
In terms of how changes should be implemented. If a majority of grant’s committee members feel it should then do it! I don’t think it needs to be over analyzed or made into something personal. Making a change at a natural interval like this makes sense.
Finally, on the last question of what changes should be made.
Based on what I’ve read I think making some changes are warranted. It’s very clear that the divergence around how time should be used and tracking of time is distracting from the overall goals of the committee. Outside of time tracking, it also sounds like there are performance concerns (missing meetings, etc.) which are serious. So I would like to see some changes implemented. I think it would be an unhealthy precedent to have a clear identification and articulation of sub-optimal outcomes and not do anything to address them.
There’s probably a few ways those could be addressed (adjusting hourly caps, changing members, changing roles for members). I think which change is most appropriate is up to the committee members but I fully support making some changes. I wouldn’t feel comfortable voting to approve the next phase of grants without adjusts being made given everything I’ve read here.