# VDP-51 Stewardship election \[counter proposal\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Archived Proposals\ **Created:** [July 14, 2022, 2:01pm UTC](https://gov.vitadao.com/t/vdp-51-stewardship-election-counter-proposal/759 "2022-07-14T14:01:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 15
**Author:** ![theobtl](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex017/user_avatar/gov.vitadao.com/theobtl/32/13_2.png) [@theobtl](https://gov.vitadao.com/u/theobtl)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2022, 9:16pm UTC](https://gov.vitadao.com/t/vdp-51-stewardship-election-counter-proposal/759/15 "2022-08-14T21:16:50Z")
> [@Max\_Unfried](#): > > I do like certain steps in the proposal. However I feel that WG members should have a stronger say in the Steward Onboarding and Off-boarding. It should not only be up to VitaCore. […] In general we should aim at strengthening the WG and Community, so that they can hold VitaCore and Stewards accountable, and not monopolizing powers in VitaCore. Couldn’t agree more > [@Max\_Unfried](#): > > Re **Heavy knowledge skewing** : With this argument we should be against token votes and fundamentals of DAOs. Good point, but also because token-weighted voting is quite a suboptimal process that is not meritocratic at all by default. > [@m\_marinova](#): > > Regarding knowledge skewing, I would assume it’s best that the WG members of longevity would vote for longevity steward, and same for tokenomics, governance, etc. and not across WGs. That makes a lot of sense to me. I believe we should include this here or, if this proposal does not pass, consider this detail for [VDP-36](https://gov.vitadao.com/t/vdp-36-stewardship-process-amendment-1/564) or a future governance amendment. There are several practical issues to resolve, though: If only the members of a specific working group are allowed to vote, how should we deal with smaller working groups (such as tokenomics or governance) where there are only 1-2 people who’s main affilliation is that working group and a handful more people who’s secondary affiliation is that working group? One way could be to play with voting weights, e.g. - any working group member who’s main affilliation is with that working group has a 5x voting weight - any working group member who’s secondary affilliation is with that working group has a 1x voting weight - any working group member who’s main and other affilliations are not in that working group, does not have a voting weight but has the right to raise criticism and receive a public response What do you think about that definition? --- _[View the full topic](https://gov.vitadao.com/t/vdp-51-stewardship-election-counter-proposal/759)._