# \[DRAFT PROPOSAL\]: Moving to a Grants Council **URL:** \ **Category:** Reflection Period Proposal\ **Created:** [November 8, 2022, 8:03pm UTC](https://gov.optimism.io/t/draft-proposal-moving-to-a-grants-council/3945 "2022-11-08T20:03:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 23
**Author:** ![Luckyhooman.eth](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/bc41dd/user_avatar/gov.optimism.io/luckyhooman.eth/32/1684_2.png) [@Luckyhooman.eth](https://gov.optimism.io/u/Luckyhooman.eth)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2022, 7:20pm UTC](https://gov.optimism.io/t/draft-proposal-moving-to-a-grants-council/3945/23 "2022-11-11T19:20:52Z")
Thanks for putting this together. We are still in an experimental stage so its good to give all options a fair trial. I am concerned that this could lead to a decrease in participation as " **protocol upgrades, inflation adjustments, treasury appropriations / Foundation budget, and Director removal**" proposals are few and far between. I am not denying the importance of those votes just the frequency in which they occur. I realize there is also the important role of oversight on the Council by non-Council delegates and hopefully this will encourage frequent constructive participation by community members and delegates. One suggestion would be we add one reserve/substitute reviewer per sub-committee. This will come in handy when a conflict of interest arises or if a council member is unfit or unavailable for a cycle. Another would be > [@](#): > > commit to spend roughly 12 hours a week on these responsibilities Increase the responsibilities by phrasing it~ commit to spend roughly 2 hours a day on these responsibilities. Coz it wouldn’t be helpful if reviewers are MIA for 4 days of the week as it’s there roll to provide feedback, answer questions and respond to comments. --- _[View the full topic](https://gov.optimism.io/t/draft-proposal-moving-to-a-grants-council/3945)._