Thanks @sat for the further discussion points.
So how strongly do I feel about rejecting this proposal? On a scale of meh → tough call → slightly → moderately → rather strongly indeed → very strongly → extremely → fanatical → cmbd, I’d probably go with slightly, so just strongly enough that I’d still favour rejecting it but would still be amenable to alternative viewpoints.
What I think would be really good would be to work towards aligning the decision tools and target topology more closely, which I think is what you had in mind anyway. Given that there’s a longer term plan to expand the larger subnets to 41 nodes, I gather there will be another target topology proposal in the not-too-distant future. I’d suggest raising it in the forum quite some time ahead of submitting the proposal. That would give a chance for discussing whether to add cities, continents, etc to the framework, whether to add some requirements based on Nakamoto coefficients and so forth. There’s a fair bit to weigh up there, such as the possible scenarios we’re aiming to prevent. In the case of cities, a city-wide power outage could potentially impact the network. For continents, it’s hard to think of anything much that could happen, except perhaps in the case of Europe if there is some EU-related action that impacts, but I don’t know if even that is theoretically possible. If there’s an interest in pursuing this sort of discussion sooner, it might be worth carrying it over to the general subnet management topic, or even to a new topic.