Reduce the committeeMinSize parameter from 7 to 5

6 of 7 committee members voted

• Ace Alliance71aa5b3a…8f04

  YesActive · term ends epoch 726Rationale

  ShareCopied

  Ace Alliance finds the proposed "Reduce the committeeMinSize parameter from 7 to 5" Protocol Parameter Change Governance Action Constitutional. Rationales are archived at https://github.com/ace-alliance/ace-voting/

  This Parameter Update action lowers the committeeMinSize protocol parameter from 7 to 5. As the proposer (Intersect, on behalf of the Civics Committee and the Technical Steering Committee, with the recommendation of the Parameter Committee) explains, the parameter sets the least number of registered, active Constitutional Committee members required for the governance system to ratify actions that depend on Constitutional Committee approval. The change does not alter the current number of committee seats, nor the maximum committee size, nor the membership of the sitting committee. Its sole effect is to widen the buffer between the minimum required seats and the seats actually filled, so that one or two resignations or term expirations do not render Parameter Changes, Constitution Updates, Treasury Withdrawals, and Hard Fork Initiations ineligible for ratification. We review the action for constitutionality only, not for the policy desirability of a smaller floor, and we apply identical scrutiny regardless of proposer.

  Article II.6.1 and II.6.2 (Governance Action Standards). The action is anchored to an immutable IPFS document (ipfs://bafkreidbxerdwxxntmmr6qvjvquyla3qbwhk3flfqjbm3d5lj2ubxfk3aq, hash 8c7c510c1c959d5c587de268350ce9275af45a05f5774c15fd424b924e18e749) and supplies a title, abstract, motivation, and rationale, including a comparison of voting arithmetic at committee sizes 7, 6, and 5 and an explicit reversion plan. The standardized-format and sufficient-rationale requirements are met.

  Article II.6.3 (Technical Review of Parameter Updates). Parameter Update actions must undergo sufficient technical review and scrutiny under the Guardrails to ensure they do not endanger the security, functionality, performance, or long-term sustainability of the Cardano Blockchain. The change was processed through the Parameter Committee's Parameter Change Process and is documented in the public PCP-005 discussion. committeeMinSize is a governance parameter that governs ratification eligibility; it has no effect on node operation, block production, or transaction processing, so it presents no security, functionality, or performance risk.

  Appendix I.2 (PARAM-01). committeeMinSize is a parameter explicitly named in the Guardrails, so it is eligible to be changed by a Parameter Update action; PARAM-01's prohibition on changing unlisted parameters is not implicated.

  Appendix I.2.1 (Critical Protocol Parameters: PARAM-05a, PARAM-06a). committeeMinSize is enumerated among the parameters that are critical to the governance system, so the critical-parameter guardrails attach. PARAM-05a requires that DReps vote "yes" with collective support of more than 50% of active voting stake, a requirement enforced through the DRep voting thresholds for governance-parameter actions; the action is subject to and gated by that threshold. PARAM-06a provides that at least 90 days should normally pass between the publication of an off-chain proposal to change a governance-critical parameter and the submission of the corresponding on-chain action. This is a "should" guardrail, relaxable only for a Severity 1 or Severity 2 network issue, and it is satisfied here on its own terms: the off-chain proposal was published in the Cardano Forum on 2025-11-11, well over 90 days before on-chain submission, so no reliance on the relaxation clause is needed.

  Appendix I.2.5 (Governance Parameters: committeeMinSize, CMS-01 to CMS-03). The proposed value of 5 satisfies every checkable guardrail for this parameter: it is not negative (CMS-01), it is not lower than 3 (CMS-02), and it does not exceed 10 (CMS-03). The change also sits squarely within the stated goals for managing governance parameters, namely ensuring governance stability and maintaining a representative form of governance: introducing an operational buffer directly serves stability by reducing the risk that a single departure halts ratification.

  Appendix I.2.6 (Monitoring and Reversion of Parameter Changes). A specific reversion plan is required for each parameter change. The proposal provides one: committeeMinSize can be returned to 7, with the only practical impact arising if fewer than 7 members are seated at the time of reversion. This satisfies the reversion-plan requirement for a non-network parameter.

  Article III.2 (Composition and Terms). The number of committee members and their term lengths are to be determined from time to time by Ada owners, with staggered terms to assure continuity. This action does not displace that determination: it sets a floor, not a target, and the proposer affirms that the elections process is intended to maintain a 7-seat committee. By preserving the system's ability to operate through brief periods of reduced membership, the lower floor is consistent with, rather than contrary to, the continuity that Article III.2 seeks to assure.

  The action's stated dependency on a separate live Plutus cost-model Parameter Update (gov_action1eqhnsdyf3exhp5mqt7sdjtl7xy69wqg8tvg854psns2jt72cra3qqrcnr8r) is, by the proposer's account, purely temporal with no technical interaction. That sequencing is a coordination matter and raises no independent constitutional concern.

  Ace Alliance finds the proposed "Reduce the committeeMinSize parameter from 7 to 5" Protocol Parameter Change Governance Action Constitutional.

• Cardano Curia84feba94…6bd5

  YesActive · term ends epoch 799Rationale

  ShareCopied

  Cardano Curia finds the governance action to reduce the committeeMinSize parameter from 7 to 5 constitutional. The action strengthens governance continuity by creating an operational buffer for the Constitutional Committee while preserving the existing committee structure and remaining within the applicable guardrails.

  What is being proposed

  This governance action is a Parameter Change proposing to reduce the committeeMinSize parameter from 7 to 5.

  The expected effect is to reduce the risk that the Constitutional Committee becomes unable to operate if the number of registered committee members temporarily falls below 7. The action does not remove any Constitutional Committee member, does not reduce the current number of committee seats, and does not alter the role of the Constitutional Committee. It only adjusts the minimum registered committee size required for the committee to remain operational on-chain.

  Constitutional and guardrails assessment

  The action is constitutionally aligned because it supports continuity of Cardano governance while preserving the Constitutional Committee's function as a constitutional safeguard. The proposal addresses a governance-system parameter and provides a clear reason for the change: avoiding unnecessary governance fragility if a vacancy, resignation, term issue, or other operational event causes the number of registered committee members to fall below the current minimum.

  The proposed value of 5 remains within the relevant guardrail range for committeeMinSize. It is not negative, it is not below the minimum permitted value of 3, and it does not exceed the maximum permitted value of 10. Therefore, the parameter value itself does not conflict with the applicable guardrails.

  The action is also consistent with the constitutional principles of transparent, resilient, and accountable governance. It improves operational resilience without preventing the community from maintaining a 7-seat Constitutional Committee through the normal election and governance processes.

  Governance quality assessment

  The action is clear in scope: it changes one governance parameter, committeeMinSize, from 7 to 5. The intended outcome is measurable and limited: the Constitutional Committee can continue to satisfy its minimum-size requirement even if temporary membership changes occur.

  The action is feasible because it is a direct parameter update rather than a broad process change. It does not require treasury spending, does not introduce new administrative powers, and does not create new obligations for ada holders, DReps, SPOs, or the Constitutional Committee beyond the parameter change itself.

  The action is also reversible through a future governance action if the community later determines that a higher committeeMinSize is preferable. This reversibility supports a positive constitutional finding because the change is not an irreversible alteration of Cardano's governance structure.

  Determination

  Cardano Curia finds this governance action constitutional. The action is narrow, technically bounded, within the applicable guardrails, and directed at maintaining governance continuity rather than weakening constitutional oversight.

  Cardano Curia judges the governance action to reduce committeeMinSize from 7 to 5 to be constitutional. The action is clear, limited, reversible, and within the applicable guardrails. It supports governance continuity while preserving the role and safeguards of the Constitutional Committee. Cardano Curia therefore records 5 constitutional votes, 0 unconstitutional votes, 0 abstentions, 0 did-not-vote, and 0 against votes.

• Cardano Japan Council725d4d44…7b31

  YesExpired · term ends epoch 653Rationale

  ShareCopied

  We consider this governance action to be constitutional.

  This proposal is a Parameter Update Governance Action regarding Intersect's proposal to "Reduce the committeeMinSize parameter from 7 to 5". The proposal explains that changing the protocol parameter committeeMinSize - which defines the minimum number of members required for the Constitutional Committee to remain operational - from 7 to 5 will improve the operational resilience of on-chain governance by mitigating the risk of governance disruption due to resignations or the expiration of terms of office within the Constitutional Committee. Regarding Article 2, Section 6, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Cardano Constitution, this proposal adopts an immutable off-chain reference using IPFS. Furthermore, the proposal text includes a title, abstract, motivation, rationale, and references; we therefore determine that it presents information sufficient for evaluation as a Governance Action. Regarding Article 2, Section 6, Paragraph 3 of the Cardano Constitution, the body of this proposal states that technical review and scrutiny were conducted through the Parameter Committee Parameter Change Process (PCP). Furthermore, the supplementary materials - specifically the TSC meeting minutes - confirm that the technical validity of this proposal was verified. Based on this, we determine that the technical review and scrutiny required by the Cardano Constitution has been carried out. Furthermore, we have confirmed that the proposed value of committeeMinSize = 5 complies with the guardrails outlined in CMS-01, CMS-02, and CMS-03. Additionally, since committeeMinSize is a critical parameter for the governance system, PARAM-06a stipulates that a period of at least 90 days should ordinarily elapse between the publication of an off-chain proposal and the submission of the corresponding on-chain Governance Action. The body of the proposal explains that the off-chain proposal was published in November 2025 and that it was resubmitted because the previous Governance Action was invalidated due to a technical conflict. Based on these facts, no clear conflict between this proposal and PARAM-06a was identified. Therefore, we determine that this proposal is constitutional.

  For the reasons stated above, we determine that it is constitutional.

• Eastern Cardano Council2ea7a78e…10ec

  YesActive · term ends epoch 726Rationale

  ShareCopied

  We have determined that this Parameter Change governance action is constitutional.

  Article II, Section 6.3 of the Cardano Constitution states ""Hard Fork Initiation" and "Parameter Update" actions shall undergo sufficient technical review and scrutiny as mandated by the Guardrails to ensure that the governance action does not endanger the security, functionality, performance, or long-term sustainability of the Cardano Blockchain."

  The governance action with ID “gov_action1cad...58n5ur” and title “Reduce the committeeMinSize parameter from 7 to 5”, as a Parameter Change governance action, has “undergone appropriate technical review and scrutiny through the Parameter Committee Parameter Change Process (PCP)” and states that it “does not endanger the security, functionality, performance, or long-term sustainability of the Cardano Blockchain.”

  The governance action complies with the relevant guardrails, being CMS-01, CMS-02 and CMS-03. It also provides a Reversion Plan as required by Appendix I, Section 2.6.

  We therefore find this governance action Constitutional.

  As a Parameter Change, this governance action has undergone sufficient technical review and complies with the relevant guardrails in the Cardano Constitution, so is deemed constitutional.

• KtorZ64f97568…3a49

  YesExpired · term ends epoch 653Rationale

  ShareCopied

  All good

  The proposal seeks to improve the operational resilience of Cardano governance by reducing the committeeMinSize protocol parameter from 7 to 5. It provides a clear rationale for the change, discusses the associated trade-offs, identifies the relevant guardrails, and includes a reversion plan. The proposal therefore appears consistent with the objectives of maintaining the effective operation and long-term sustainability of Cardano.

  The proposal is well documented and provides sufficient supporting information to enable constitutional review. It clearly identifies the parameter being changed, the motivation for the change, the governance dependency on another live governance action, and the expected impact. The proposal also demonstrates compliance with the relevant constitutional guardrails applicable to this parameter (by merely existing! Note there is no need to re-state conditions in the rationale; the guardrails makes it impossible to submit such a proposal otherwise...).

  While reducing the minimum committee size necessarily lowers the number of members required to ratify or block governance actions, this is an inherent consequence of the proposed parameter change rather than a constitutional deficiency. Whether this trade-off is desirable is a governance question for DReps and other voting bodies, rather than a matter of constitutional compliance.

  All-in-all, I find the proposal constitutionally compliant.

• Tingvard646d1b3a…be43

  YesActive · term ends epoch 726Rationale

  ShareCopied

  Tingvard judges the “Reduce the committeeMinSize parameter from 7 to 5” governance action constitutional.

  This governance action is a Parameter Change action proposing to reduce the committeeMinSize parameter from 7 to 5.

  The proposal explains that the current Constitutional Committee has 7 members, which is equal to the current committeeMinSize value of 7. This creates operational fragility because a resignation, expiration, or other reduction in registered committee members could cause the Constitutional Committee to fall below the minimum required size, preventing governance actions that require Constitutional Committee approval from progressing.

  The proposed change does not reduce the actual number of Constitutional Committee members. It changes only the minimum number of registered committee members required for the Constitutional Committee to remain operational on-chain.

  The proposal states that the change is intended to create an operational buffer while maintaining constitutional safeguards. It also notes that the current election process is intended to maintain a 7-seat Constitutional Committee and that the change is not intended to lower the existing number of seats.

  The proposal identifies the relevant guardrails for committeeMinSize:

  CMS-01: committeeMinSize must not be negative.
  CMS-02: committeeMinSize must not be lower than 3.
  CMS-03: committeeMinSize must not exceed 10.

  A value of 5 satisfies all three guardrails.

  The proposal also states that committeeMinSize is considered a parameter critical to governance and that an off-chain proposal was published on 2025-11-11. It references the Parameter Committee process and the PCP-005 discussion, and states that the proposal has undergone appropriate technical review and scrutiny.

  The action also includes a reversion plan. The proposal explains that the change is reversible if needed, provided there are at least 7 Constitutional Committee members, and that reverting to 7 would only halt governance if the Constitutional Committee had fewer than 7 registered members at the time of reversion.

  Tingvard therefore finds that the proposal satisfies the relevant constitutional requirements for this Parameter Change.

  Tingvard finds that the “Reduce the committeeMinSize parameter from 7 to 5” governance action satisfies the relevant constitutional requirements.

  The proposed value of 5 is within the permitted guardrail range, the proposal provides sufficient rationale and technical review, and the change is presented as an operational resilience measure rather than an attempt to reduce the actual Constitutional Committee.

  Tingvard therefore judges this governance action constitutional.

• Phil_uplc68bb0b42…8746

  Not votedActive · term ends epoch 799No rationale