Personally, I am against VDP-51 and would vote against it on Snapshot.
I’m fundamentally against the underlying idea of VDP-51 that Vitacore should have the ultimate authority over who becomes a steward (and thereby also joins Vitacore as defined in VDP-34 Defining VitaCore). I do think, VDP-51 contains other details that we should consider implementing - but this underlying principle of giving even more power to Vitacore and taking it away from working group membrs (as defined in VDP-19 Stewardship Process) is a no-go for me. Only if that definition is changed, I would consider voting for VDP-51.
Practically speaking, I would rather use the existing proposal VDP-36 Stewardship Process Amendment #1 to improve VDP-19. Mainly, because VDP-36 does not intend to change the fundamental logic of VDP-19 of moving power from working group members to Vitacore, like VDP-51 does. Personally, I’m certainly open to changing and amending VDP-36 significantly and we should discuss that in the VDP-36 thread. For instance, VDP-36 refers to VDP-44 Dispute Resolution Process which got stuck in phase 2 and should be removed from VDP-36, since VDP-44 has failed as it is.
Moreover, and as @schmackofant has rightfully pointed out before, VDP-51 could be misleading with its title containing “counter proposal”. In VDP-52, it is argued that VDP-51 is a counter proposal to VDP-36. That, however, is not true. VDP-51 is a proposal that intends to change VDP-19, which has passed governance over half a year ago. VDP-36 is merely an amendment to VDP-19, but VDP-19 is already in effect. Therefore, VDP-51 should not be compared to VDP-36, but to VDP-19. VDP-51 is not a “counter proposal”, but a new proposal intending to change VDP-19 that is already in effect.