Hi @Vulkan, open to community feedback. The rationale behind breaking these into two AIPs was that the two processes were thought of as separate and distinct. In the event where the community wished to modify the nomination or election process, it could be done separately without affecting the other proposed process. If one AIP were to be accepted and the other rejected, it would confirm that the community agrees with one process and not the other. A new and/or adjusted process of the rejected AIP may then be proposed.