I would tend to think that any proposal requiring any

sort of code change or software development on any level would be deemed a technical proposal.

To that point, I'd like to reiterate that any community member, whether from a technical background or not, is free to post a proposed feature in the Technical Vision Forum for public comment, which would ultimately make its way to the Vision Council for deliberation.

There is no expectation that proposals in the Technical Vision Council will be written in any sort of technical manner or with any level of technical specification. So even a non-technical community member can propose a technical feature.

Given that, I am curious to know why there might be a need for a separate forum?

I don't know about a seperate forum, what I am concerned about is for the community to have a voice 😂 but idk I feel like that is not going to happen regardless of what I say

Can I ask you, if future iterations of the Vision Council were elected by direct token holder vote, would you still feel that the community has no voice?

I think that that is definitely better.. but also In politics people might not be happy with direction taken at a later stage and not everyone will be represented by those council members. If I was able to vote, even if I am in the minority, I can at least represent myself and let my voice be heard. But I do not think that community should be able to make a final decision, to be clear

Sorry, just to clarify, when you refer to the ability to vote, you are referring to something different that voting for who sits on the council?

In my view, the council should focus on the foundational elements of the project and the grand ideas that mold Cartesi into what it is and what it will become. It's likely that the community wouldn't even be frustrated about not voting for the council, given that the council has always handled core developments of the Cartesi project effectively. Meanwhile, it would be beneficial for the non-technical community to have the ability to vote on minor enhancements to be introduced along the way. This could occur without obstructing the workings of the council and the core development process.

Can you give me some examples of how you see the distinction between minor technical enhancements as opposed to more "core" technical features?

yess sure : technical core proposal for council : Run Nix inside Cartesi / non technical community proposal from community : Make a sniping tool that scans the Ethereum network searching for the latest tokens issued on the blockchain, and allows purchasing as soon as they are listed on Uniswap for a predetermined amount set by the user

So, this would be more like a DApp, right?

I know you are going to tell me that Cartesi is the machine and that the DApps will come from external developers using Cartesi VM, but wouldn't a good example of a popular DApp created by the founders, who are best placed to use their product at the start, be the best MVP to present to the public? So that developers can see a promising result and use your product later, while creating demand for your token immediately!

Or that the community can vote for a dapp to be developed from start to finish..instead of only add on features of the cartesi tech.. it does not necessarily have to be created by the owners or Devs of cartesi right?

And do you not think that the community should be able to voice that they really want certain utility implemented for example?

Regarding the use of the token in the Cartesi VM as it was previously announced as being the fuel, I can understand that charging fees to use their system is not currently the best way to expand the project. It's more attractive to tell developers to come try our platform, it's free. But that's why I think Cartesi should make some DApps using Cartesi themselves to offset this lack of demand. And these DApps could be voted on by the non-technical community.

But I do not understand why this must be made by cartesi team, this can be an external party right? And what if someone has a good proposal, maybe additional feature with Ctsi utility