Of course - nobody has to engage with the community. If you don't you might find many people might stop running your node implementation if you do things they dont agree with. So, one easy thing would be to try to explain any planned changes (especially if they are bigger and/or contentious) in a blog post and spread it on social media, so others can comment. The point is mostly to collect all the various arguments that are being made or the criticism that might be observable and potentially mitigate or adapt the planned updates. That way it is possible to avoid the issue. There are many ways. Open source is all about the freedom to fork and the world to choose what open source programs to run. That is the democratic voting power of node runners and miners to keep the power of a single developer team in check and instead of discrediting that, it should be embraced. Of course, core can move forward regardless and look down on any criticism if they think that will help them, but they should bear the consequences as well. ...could you maybe finally answers why or how core30 proposal is meant to achieve more decentralization or link to a resource that explains it? 🤷‍♂️