Thanks for the questions!
- What types of commitments do CFC members have towards the community? Should they be engaged in initiatives, such as calls with other OP stakeholders and members, or will they solely act as isolated observers of public feedback? For example, will there be operational procedures, communication threads, or public instances?
Good question! The CFC are not public representatives in that they do not take on responsibilities that would otherwise by directed by tokenholders, and therefore they do not uphold commitments to the community. This is an important design principle.
These types of commitments are important when we have representatives entrusted (via election or delegation) to take actions on behalf of tokenholders or when a group of people are being rewarded/delegated to by the Governance Fund. In this case, the CFC are simply carrying out activities in addition to, but not on behalf of, tokenholders.
- Is the roadmap considering the addition of new participants, such as new active delegates or organizations? If so, what are the expectations for incorporating new active members?
Please see above regarding the transition of the CFC to an open contribution path, outlined in more detail here.
- Currently, vacancies left by members who decide not to participate will not be filled. What is the rationale behind this decision? Will any guidelines be defined for their renewal?
Vacancies were not filled on a rolling basis as there is no optimal number of participants in this experiment. We’ve used such a method in the past with delegation programs as there was a fixed amount of delegation that needed to be spread over a minimum number of participants. In this case, there is no such dynamic, and filling spots on a rolling basis creates additional overhead and operational complexity.
Importantly, design can actually suffer from “design by committee” when there are too many participants. Part of what we are experimenting with in the outlined path towards open metagovernance is how to involve more people in the process while avoiding the pitfalls of “design by committee.” It is a hard problem that will require us to iterate, which is why we are taking a gradual approach to establishing the infrastructure required to enable more and more people to effectively contribute (but that is definitely the end goal!)
Regarding renewal, the CFC will be re-evaluated at the end of the initial six month trial but the goal is not to renew it but rather evolve it into an open contribution path as soon as practicable. We will need to collect and incorporate learnings from this initial experiment before we can know exactly how this will work.
- How will the polls be conducted?
Polls will be conducted on the forum, when relevant. At a minimum, all reflection period proposals will now include polls to collect feedback from the community on different aspects of the proposal and/or whether the community believes it is ready to move to a vote.