Luckily for us, we have a diverse community with many leadership and direction ideas to mould into something (hopefully) in the best interests of the platform.

There are pros and cons to both approaches, I'll agree with that, and perceived freedoms or lack thereof in the process, but the freedom to commit 100%, or not remains in both cases. The one just provides an extra escape option if things aren't going all that well. When the only outcome is success or failure; that's when the true stayers come to the fore, and success, though hard-earned, becomes more likely.

I can see the difference between our approaches, and sure! There is a time and place for a "Hey! We're gonna try this, come and have a go" mentality.

In my opinion, this isn't one of those times. The measured, soft approach in this fiasco has gotten us nowhere fast so far. We need a strong and decisive leadership group to step up, and bring us a vision to buy into 100%, and plunge headfirst into with no looking back. We need a united front from the big players to show up amd lead a move away, with the belief that failure is nit an option.

If spineless fairweather mediocrity and "go with the flow", with a safety just in case we fail approach is your cup of tea, you have the freedom to choose that too.

I'm glad we have some leaders with a bit of fight in them to balance things out.

Fortune favours the brave, my friend!