Voting Cycle#38
Our rational for voting Cycle #38 below.
Season 8 and 9 Milestone and Metrics Council Selection: Vote AGAINST
After carefully evaluating the proposal, we are supportive of initiatives moving toward onchain attestations and believe it’s best to minimize popularity based voting.
That said, several elements of the current design need to be addressed before we could fully support the experiment. First, the nominee pool is too small. Random selection from such a limited sample undermines the entropy that lends legitimacy to sortition and also risks delaying the Season 8 and 9 calendars if we must re-roll. This methodology does not ensure the strongest candidates end up on the council.
The narrow eligibility criteria may unintentionally exclude highly qualified contributors. In pursuit of objectivity and automation, we may be risking reverting to a more centralized process in which external experts are barred simply because for example they have not previously served on a council. Upon a less critical second look, we also note that pure randomness could select nominees who decline to participate, leading to further re-rolls.
We suggest considering the following aspects to iterate the current proposal:
- Grant the Council lead greater authority, veto power over the final list, or require each nominee to secure two out of three approvals (from the Foundation, the lead, and a Top 100 delegate). This way, the lead would have greater ownership of organizing the Council’s working group. This is a valid example to explore.
- We believe it would be valuable to broaden eligibility to attract new talent.
- Require all nominees to pass an OPSEC check
- Instead of unweighted random selection, explore a weighted, “mined” sortition model that preserves unpredictability without sacrificing deadlines.
We support the overall idea of the experiment, but this proposal could benefit from further refinement, address remaining concerns and isn’t worth rushing, so we will vote AGAINST.