Lol, Jamie, I can't tell if you want more Openness, or more privacy now.
The 175 rule is identical to what is current status. It simply opens up only one more 25-year generation, for NEW profiles, not for legacy profiles. So any edit or creation of a profile with birth 1817-1842 would be Open.
There will be about five potential profiles forced Open who died as late as 1952. These are already very famous centenarians, who are extremely well documented all over the Internet and in the news.
There will be about a thousand potential profiles of people who died between 1942-1952. The vast majority of these will not be entered into WikiTree for years to come, because they are not very rare, and so are not very notable for their longevity. Maybe a couple dozen of them will be created on WikiTree, and most of those probably already exist, because of family members who think it is a big deal to have a relative over 100 in age. So only a new edit will force any of those legacy profiles open.
As for the rest of the very elderly, WikiTree started a decade ago, so we have already progressed forward in time one-half generation. So the 200 year rule needs to shift forward as well. If we make it 175 right now, then we split the difference, as opposed to waiting until the end of the generation cycle, in say 10 years, and then implement the 175 cutoff at that time. It makes little difference when we actually do it. It would simply be easier and more problem-solving for collaboration if we do it now.
As far as the cousinship, my proposal was only to apply it to deceased profiles. Not to living profiles. If a deceased profile died in the 1930s, and is locked down in Red privacy, by some far distant name collector who got to it first, and is being absent or uncooperative about adding me to the Trusted List, then if the deceased is my second cousin, I should simply be allowed to have an easy entry point into that profile.
Here is a good way to test - if I, as a second cousin, have a closer direct relationship to the profile than does anybody who is on the current Trusted List, then I should be able to get in without going through a huge process deal. The far distant name collector manager will still be manager. But I will get more automatic access to my own close deceased relatives.
On the other hand, if the profile was created by a first cousin, or a first cousin or a child of the deceased was added to the Trusted List, then my request would have to still follow the existing procedure. I would not be automatically allowed in by the system bot. I think we can easily create such a system, and so then solve it for everybody in this way.
We can start something like that very gradually, to test it out for reactions and such. For example, instead of the death rule, we can apply it right now to anybody who died before 1900.
For instance, I have a Green profile which I have not edited in four years. Born abt 1840. I could have it as a Red profile. I just checked, and I have no blood relationship to this profile. If a relative comes along, a fourth cousin, they must go through the request process for me to grant them access.
But with this new proposal of mine, we can treat birth as = death date, so it is < 1900. And then rather than have to wait for me to approve accesss, etc., they can simply run a new tool, "test for closer relationship." That will run the relationship finder on the manager, and on all the current members of the Trusted List. Since I am sole manager, it shows I have no connection. And it shows that the new relative has the 4th cousinship. So they get an automated pop up response option at that point, "Add yourself to the Trusted List." And done.
On the other hand, if a great-grandson is already on the Trusted List, then nothing happens. Maybe this new person get an automated response, "Sorry, you are not the closest relative on the Trusted List."
The elegance of this solution is that we already have the tool existing, the relationship finder. So the only new thing to build technically is the autobot to add themself to the Trusted List, if they pass the test.
Will people build fake profiles and fake relationships to skirt the system? Probably, if they do such things now. But they get caught, and then removed, just as happens with vandals now. A wiki always has to rely on a certain degree of integrity from its members. And of course there can be monitoring, and also speed bumps. For example, only allow five such auto-adds per day. Or red flag to a mentor watch list any such adds in excess of ten in a week.
We can solve these things. It does not have to be all or none. So if you don't like the 175, then let's simply split the difference again, to start with. Make it 190 at birth, as of today, and call it done. Then let's look at it again in a month from now, or a year from now, and see if there is consensus to make it 180, or 175 at that time.