Canceling referendum 1186

Considering

1. The track "FellowshipAdmin" is defined as "Origin for managing the composition of the fellowship." in code, wiki, and gov portals
2. The remark in 1186 asks to "Set the max member count for Head Ambassadors in the Ambassador Collective to 10", which directly relates to the composition of the Fellowship in question.
3. Additionally, no on-chain agreement or consensus states that such changes must go through Root or WFC. Compare this summary of existing Polkadot legislation. It should rather be assumed that plausible tracks are chosen. Fellowship Admin is a plausible track for administrating fellowships/collectives.

It follows that the claim of the current proposal 1188 is invalid and should thus be rejected.

Michiko-san complains that people don't follow the rules :)

lol

https://x.com/joepetrowski/status/1840099745093550159

every time I hear about this today, I am getting one more shot of excitement

While the question of whether this is the correct right track for this type of Ref can be questioned, the wider point about cancelling Ref 1186 still stands: This is the wrong approach of doing things because it is deeply undemocratic. My full response here:
https://forum.polkadot.network/t/reduce-the-set-of-head-ambassadors-and-start-an-effective-ambassador-program/10177/16