Add Constitutional Committee Member - Christina
101 SPOs voted · 4 with a rationale · 2 changed their vote · 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
- AbstainNo rationale
- AbstainNo rationale
- AbstainNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesChangedHistory
Earlier votes
No8mo agoSuperseded
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesRationale
I am voting YES on the governance action to add an eighth Constitutional Committee (CC) member (eb8ef28ca80dbd...8ccd#0). This rationale is submitted as a combined DRep and SPO vote and will outline the reasons for a YES vote, as well as outlining some reservations/recommendations, before ending with a note of credit for the origin of the idea for submitting an update committee action prior to an existing one being ratified.
I vote YES in support of this governance action as someone who has advocated for adding more members above the
committeeMinSizeparameter, both during discussions at the Cardano Summit in Berlin in November 2025 and as an elected member of the Civics Committee. Adding additional CC members abovecommitteeMinSizeis the easiest solution to improve resilience and prevent a repeat of governance stalling should another member step down or become unable to carry out their duties as a CC member. Yes, lowering thecommitteeMinSizeparameter is another available measure but as the Cardano Blockchain Ecosystem Constitution lists this parameter as “Critical to the Governance System” it requires a 3-month off-chain consultation period before an on-chain parameter update action can be submitted (PARAM-06a). I have confidence in the candidate put forth in this action, having met Christina Gianelloni in person at Cardano Summit events as well as having had a meeting during preliminary discussions around forming Adara Consortium in the previous CC election. These interactions demonstrated Christina’s belief in operating with the utmost transparency and integrity. In the absence of CC checks to this proposal I have also taken the measure of querying the on-chain action and the off-chain content. The hashes match, the action does indeed propose adding a single CC member until epoch 653 and leaves the threshold unchanged at 2/3.I also commend the community-initiated submission of this governance action as another demonstration that Cardano governance is open to all ada holders and that update committee actions are not just the purview of institutions and that the action ratification itself can provide the mandate, just as well as a formal off-chain election process prior to submission may do.
I do however recognise some reservations and have some recommendations for future community-initiated proposals. First of all, the governance action rationale references the wrong parameter name, it references
minCommitteeSizeinstead ofcommitteeMinSizeused both in the Constitution and output from a cardano-cli protocol-parameters query. Typos have been a constitutionality issue for CC members in the past, and it is worth noting in this instance as the CC does not have a vote in an update committee action, only DReps and SPOs. Secondly, the proposal is based on the candidate coming a close second in the recent CC Snap Election, which was single-choice only and not ranked-voting like the previous CC election. There is no knowing if the candidate put forth here would still have ranked second in the election, for example, if Curia was indeed voted top because of a preference for consortium candidates. Thirdly, the proposal assumes everyone knows who Christina is and would have benefitted greatly from providing some more background information for those DReps and SPOs that did not participate in the off-chain CC Snap Election facilitated by Intersect. If we consider that only about 10% of all registered DReps voted (or about 20% of ledger-recognised “active” DReps), not including more information for the remaining DReps and SPOs at the proposal stage could have a detrimental effect on the chances of ratification.Finally, I would like to acknowledge the inspiration behind the timing of this update committee action. It was submitted prior to the on-chain ratification of the previous update committee action to install CC Snap Election winners, Cardano Curia, on to the Constitutional Committee. This is a clever way to save time by referencing the previous governance action id ahead of time, assuming that it passes. Each update committee action is required to reference the previous successful governance action using its id at the action creation stage. By submitting this action before the Curia proposal passed, it ensures that it would not pass if the Curia proposal did not, and also saves an epoch as opposed to waiting for actual ratification of the previous action. This technique first appeared on SanchoNet recently when there existed two update committee actions on-chain at the same time. Phoenix Alliance, a candidate in the CC Snap Election, had submitted an update committee action during the election period as a way to demonstrate to voters that they had the capabilities to carry out the role of CC member. A member of Tingvard (TECH pool) also wanted to test out something and submitted another update committee action at the same time but this time referencing the previous, not-yet-ratified Phoenix Alliance action, in anticipation of its ultimate passing because SanchoNet is very much there for testing and actions can pass much more easily than on mainnet. So, credit where credit is due, to TECH pool and their flexible thinking when it comes to timing the submission of governance actions that require a reference to previously enacted governance actions. Additionally, it is worth noting that Phoenix Alliance were the only candidates in the CC Snap Election that undertook the step of proving their ability to carry out the role by submitting credentials to SanchoNet, a measure I hope becomes a standard requirement for applicants prior to receiving candidate status approval in future elections.
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesRationale
I vote yes to instate Christina Gianelloni (musikc) as the 8th constitutional committee member. This will allow us additional bandwidth and redundancy in our constitutional assessments. I have personally met Christina and been following her engagement within governance and the community simply by being active in the ecosystem, and trust her to take on this task with diligence and care.
I have independently verified that the correct cold key was used in the governance action, by contacting Christina and matching the key she shared with the on-chain proposal. Christina provided the key hash
c46a3789d71bc0a27d1c381909289978797a60c5f67aa8bc2b26ab92, while the on-chain proposal includes the bech32-encoded keycc_cold1ztzx5duf6udupgnarsupjzfgn9u8j7nqchm8429u9vn2hys9m3kkv.Using
echo cc_cold1ztzx5duf6udupgnarsupjzfgn9u8j7nqchm8429u9vn2hys9m3kkv | bech32
we can confirm the hash matches, and that it carries the expected CIP-12912prefix (CC cold key, key hash). - YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesRationale
As I stated in my rationale for my vote on the gov action to add Cardano Curia, that I would rather have seen both them and Christina added to the CC, it is a given that I vote ✅ YES on this one too.
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale
- YesNo rationale