It was disharmony in the gov channel that led to the governance documents being pulled from the github repository IMO. Maybe they always intended to do it but it happened very soon after heated debates with Dan suggesting as much. I was very worried that we would have no or a minimal constitution! I think Dan coming back in later on defending the reference constitution - especially Article 1 - is what turned the tide. I hadn't heard of EOSGA before either. It would have been hard to proceed with a minimal constitution after Dan's impassioned defence of it. Well done to them for changing course. When the chain is launched and we can vote on such things hopefully it will get easier!
I hope someone makes a transcript of the discussion in there! It was great.
Events of the last two days certainly offer a good base for behavioural studies. My impression is, that the eosgov member didnt anticipate what effects their controversy would have, especially since Thomas Cox presented the las consitution draft he had gone over with Dan as the default constitution, so i might have misread, but the message was, this is whats going to be in the launch constitution. Fully agree, that a minimal viable constitution would have been very weak and it would have become very hard to implement a full constitution, that would have come near to the goals of the original one.
Astonishingly the General Assembly started operations 72h ago, they said, so it seems, that they had formed already before Dan dropping the doc, so maybe there already was a Plan B.... just speculating of course.