Hey Tane!
Thanks for this flag it’s both a fair point and a crack that caused misalignment in expectations. I’m sure NEC will take this in consideration for future cases which I hope will be 0.
This is an edge case and the first time that an asset has been “unendorsed,” so admit it might cause misalignment in the expectations of the delegates, community, other DAO contributors, and NEC over necessary communications.
From the NEC perspective, the case was addressed here.
NEC does not have a mandate for re-endorsements as this situation is unprecedented. Thus, directing the respective party to a regular flow has occurred.
How I understood the message was:
Sadly, due to the new fact that deployment is not per endorsement specs, it has to be removed. If you want to have it re-endorsed please use the regular DAO flow via Snapshot vote, which was executed 8 times before.
It never guaranteed new NEC approval just factually stated it’s no longer in NEC purview.
In any case, endorsement is not a requirement to have bridgable assets and get some levels of contributor support if needed. The Minimum requirement is audit and 3rd party verification that deployment equals audited code.