Switching to aye after an initial discussion with TWR. I still think there should be time-limited terms (not necessarily consecutive term limits), and it would be beneficial to have it included in the PCF processes. [MY ORIGINAL COMMENT FOLLOWS] I find it beneficial to discuss a framework for the regulation of the process, so thank you to TWR for addressing it, yet I believe that the position should be term-based. The community doesn't have the necessary bandwidth to track the effectiveness of elected directors if their terms are not time-limited. A WfC proposal for each removal is not practical. Ideally, this process should happen entirely on-chain in the future, similar to the council elections of Gov1. [Addition: please see my reply below in discussions.]

I do think that if this initiative needs to be run by community with a term limit.
New directors should be brought to the table by old directors for continuity, Ideally have a law background. Glad this is moving forward.

Let's get some directors in! However also agree term limits are a good idea also, in order to set upfront, especially as there are only two slots.

I completely agree with opening up opportunities for the community to participate in the decisions and actions that the Polkadot Community Foundation may take.

We definitely need more ways for the community to interact with the PCF but this is a good start.

Agree with others' opinions.

We support this idea, aye.