Add Constitutional Committee Member
321 SPOs voted · 8 with a rationale · 1 re-voted unchanged
Open a row to read the rationale.
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesRationale
I am voting "Yes" on "Adding a New Constitutional Committee Member." This is the result of the previous election held by Intersect, and no authority managed other election for this. I have joined the voting, and this means I am going to follow the result no matter who was elected (actually I voted for Cardano Curia). [Japanese version follows] 憲法委員の追加について、賛成票を投じます。本案はインターセクトが行なった選挙結果によるもので、同団体以外はこうした投票を行なっていませんでした。また、私自身も投票に参加しており、それはこの選挙結果に従うことを意味します（実際にはCardano Curiaに投票していました）。
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesRationale
Given that the outcome of the Ekklesia vote is somewhat split between two candidates and a large portion of DReps/stake didn’t vote, I would rather have seen either a gov action that adds them both (we would also be better off with a CC consisting of more members than the minimum), or multiple simultaneous gov actions where we would have the choice between adding them both or only one of them, essentially holding a “2nd round” on-chain.
That said, I think it’s more important that other proposals aren’t blocked due to a governance shutdown. Hence, I’m voting ✅ YES on this proposal, although with minor aversion (to be clear, I want both candidates to be added to the CC). - YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesRationale
I vote YES on the update committee governance action. As with the previous update committee governance action, Intersect helped facilitate an off-chain election via the Ekklesia platform to determine the candidate put forth here. I will continue to praise the Ekklesia platform for its accessibility to CLI and multisig DReps, a standard of login I still hope to one day see across the wider selection of Cardano governance tooling. DReps had time to vote one choice from a selection of five candidates and after a close outcome between the top two most voted candidates, Cardano Curia is the candidate being put forward here.
It is essential for the continuation of Cardano governance that a new Constitutional Committee member be installed as soon as possible after the retirement of the Cardano Atlantic Council resulted in the Committee falling below the committeeMinSize parameter of 7, as mandated by the ledger. As a competing candidate in this election, I acknowledge the votes of the DReps who participated and vote YES on this proposal.
In order to avoid a similar scenario in the future I would also support updating the CC with 1-2 more members soon so that the Committee size has a buffer between its’ committeeMinSize and its’ current operating size. I have advocated for this since the Cardano Summit in Berlin last month and will continue to whenever the topic arises. I understand calls to reduce the committeeMinSize in the future but this will take time as the Constitution lists it a parameter “Critical to the Governance System” and has certain time-bound requirements to it before an action can be submitted on-chain. Simply voting in more members is the quickest and easiest solution to this risk right now.
This is a combined rationale for the required SPO and DRep votes submitted simultaneously in this transaction.
- YesNo rationale