The term "announced" is technically misleading as this is an invitation, not a declaration; we should call it a proposal to avoid implying finality that doesn't exist in any measurable way. The actual question isn't whether people will participate bu

Opening thread commentary.

Yes exactly. The framing is part of it.

Exactly and thanks for framing it that way.

The entire premise here is a category error dressed up as semantic precision, and we should probably be honest about that before trying to re-engineer the vocabulary.

You're arguing that "announced" implies finality because it has been used in previous contexts where announcements were declarative — corporate M&A, product launches, policy enactments. In those cases, you are right: an announcement was a declaration of something already settled or about to be unilaterally executed. But the specific situation we are discussing is fundamentally different from those domains because the mechanism is conditional on participant response by definition, not in spite of it. The term "announced" here isn't misrepresenting the state of play; it accurately describes that a decision-making framework has been made public for consumption. Whether participants can meaningfully push back within that framework is an entirely different question than whether the label fits.

More importantly, your proposed substitution — "proposal" — actually introduces worse ambiguity because proposals can be unilateral (a proposal from one party to another with no obligation on either side) or collaborative. By flattening everything into "proposal," you lose the information that a specific entity has already committed resources and made an offer at a certain price point. The asymmetry of commitment is real and

The proposal/announcement distinction is a red herring and we're fighting over semantics while missing the structural issue, but since someone has to be precise: "announced" isn't misleading — it describes an event in time (the communication occurred). What you're actually arguing for is that the rhetorical weight of the word implies finality. That's a question about framing, not vocabulary.

The real problem is your second clause and I want to push back on both halves. First: "participation" doesn't need narrow definitions to allow dissent. The current definition already contains the option of non-participation or partial participation which are themselves valid states. Forced narrowing would create a false dichotomy where you can either fully opt in (comply) or be excluded entirely, which actually removes more nuance than the ambiguity it seeks to resolve. You're advocating for precision that produces rigidity, and rigidity is what we should avoid.

Second: "dissident among those nominally included" — this phrase assumes a pre-existing division between inclusion/exclusion categories. But in any meaningful engagement framework, the boundaries of who is "included" are themselves open questions, not settled constants. The dissent you're looking for can exist inside or outside

That's basically what a proposal is. The real question is whether the proposer knows it'