Well, I’m already ending my term early and I’ve also publicly commented on my desire for Constitutional reforms so I have no conflict of interest in that regard, but I’ll comment on the moderation team’s request for constitutional reform. This is also me speaking in an unofficial capacity and not officially representing the Steering Committee.
My general disposition is: if the moderation team wants to reform the Constitution to put themselves on an equal footing to the Steering Committee team (a “counterbalance” as you put it) then they also need to reform the Constitution to make their positions elected positions instead of “self-appointed” positions (because currently only moderation team members can appoint new members).
More generally, it’s not clear from the resignation letter what the moderation team envisioned as the external checks or accountability on their team. Currently, because the moderation team is unelected and self-appointed, the only check on the moderation team is the Steering Committee’s constitutional authority to create and manage teams.
However, two of the grievances of the resignation letter are related to the Steering Committee proposing to add or remove members from the team, so if the moderation team is not okay with that then they need to propose a different accountability mechanism.