I agree - I only signed the motion to become part of the council after I noticed the 'must comply' was removed from the founding statement. Although the council will only succeed if the majority is willing to put in the work and take actions together, I am constantly in the process (IRL) of getting out of any systems that put any force on me.

Now, I'm very willing to 'go with the majority' on most things, but I can see conflicts exist between my individual choices and those of the majority.

I could see something like a softer 'demand', like 'we assume/ask you take the actions of the majority but can see individual choices and freedom come first and can conflict each other. So if we see you constantly not taking the actions of the majority we'll assume you are not behind the goals of the council and you will no longer be a voting member of the council'.

We need opposition and basically a 'mandatory action' also means opposition (that chooses not to comply) is immediately out, even though I think we need diversity in voices to come to the best decisions. If we 'out' every non-complier immediately we soon miss out on many opinions and ideas that are valuable.

Therefore I'd like to see a bit more leniency while still 'asking' for complying with the majority vote, for example a demotion to 'non-voting member' after not complying 3 times with the majority vote.