Thanks for bringing this to light @SEEDGov. Like other delegates here, we’re largely in favor of this. All-or-nothing delegation is a large enough drawback to not upgrading; it reduces the healthy distribution of split delegation systems.
Also largely agree with Mehdi’s point here. That said, perhaps this issue could be addressed in a future proposal to avoid bundling too many action items into a single vote.
This is definitely a viable option for approaching this problem, but it does add some centralization/single-point-of-failure risks. It might implicitly encourage tokenholders to not do their own due diligence on who they’re delegating to and instead trust a select few parties. Some users don’t have time to do that due diligence, which is understandable, but it’s really something that should be encouraged. It’s probably the single most important decision for tokenholders to make if they’re not actively voting themselves, and it’s a one-time “ask” for them to evaluate delegates and choose the delegate(s) who best represent their interest. Again, we’re not opposed completely to Mehdi’s suggestion, but it could be worth exploring a handful of options.