Hey Andrea
Thanks a lot for posting this proposal. I totally understand where you are coming from.
The concerns you raised in regards to the governance process seem fair. I am always for 100% transparency. We are not hiding anything. We are serving the best interests of the DAO and users of the Balancer protocol.
A big however though - the CREAM gauge consists of an unhealthy token that only has value because of the entity that holds large quantities of it. This is just the latest of many issues with this token: https://twitter.com/peckshield/status/1561356431084986371
Therefore, I just want to point out that re-enabling a gauge for an unhealthy token is not something I want to just pass along. My main focus is to protect the DAO and its users from malicious intent. In this case it would be justified. Especially as the large token holder entity diverted most of veBAL emissions to the DIGG gauge after killing the CREAM gauge. That’s also why we are currently discussing the gauge framework to make our protocol actually self-sustainable. I really hope you understand why we are going through all these iterations!
In any case, a proper proposal was posted and meets the requirements. Therefore, it should be treated like any other proposal and could go to a vote after discussion. Question remains if in this case we dwell into very dangerous territory in regards to how the large entity took our protocol and emissions hostage.