Recently, a Governance Action was submitted on my behalf to add me as an additional Constitutional Committee member. I have received a great deal of support and I am genuinely honored by it. I have also seen a fair amount of confusion and misinformation which is why I want to address the situation directly.
I ran in a fair election hosted by Intersect on Ekklesia. However close the outcome was, I did not win. Intersect drafted the Governance Action and funded the deposit to appoint the winning consortium to fill the vacant 7th seat. That process was legitimate and I fully respect its outcome.
The additional New Committee Governance Action proposing me as an 8th member has led some to wonder what I am up to. It is important to clarify that this Governance Action was brought forward by members of the community. It was drafted by the community and the deposit was funded by the community. When I was approached about my willingness to serve in a potential 8th seat, I agreed.
This Governance Action is not an extension of the prior election.
I am not attempting to displace or override the rightful winner of a fair race. In fact, if you read the Governance Action closely, you will see that my appointment is explicitly dependent on the successful appointment of the winning consortium. Even with unanimous approval, I could not be appointed unless the 7th seat is first filled. There is no scenario in which I replace or bypass the election winner.
I do not believe I am entitled to a seat because I was the runner up. I do not believe I am entitled to a seat at all. I am simply willing to be considered for a newly proposed 8th seat.
The Cardano Constitution does not spell out a specific process for expanding the Constitutional Committee. There is also no official or constitutionally defined way for socializing an idea prior to submitting a Governance Action. While some DReps may prefer prior signaling or extended discussion, those are governance norms, not constitutional obligations.
The idea of expanding beyond 7 seats did not arise suddenly. It has been actively discussed since the retiring consortium announced their retirement date. I personally participated in many of these discussions across Twitter Spaces, Intersect meetings and private conversations. In several of these discussions, expanding to 9 seats was also suggested. The Constitution defines a minimum number of Constitutional Committee members, not a maximum. It also does not prescribe a specific process for increasing the number of seats. The only constitutionally recognized way to determine community support for such a change is through a Governance Action.
Some concerns have focused on the value of maintaining an odd number of seats to reduce deadlock risk. There is no constitutional requirement that the committee be odd numbered. More importantly, an odd number does not prevent deadlock. A 7 member committee can deadlock through abstentions or non participation, for example 3 yes votes, 3 no votes and 1 abstention. Governance outcomes depend on participation and voting thresholds, not simple seat parity.
Concerns have also been raised about the precedent this Governance Action could establish. The Constitution does not bind future Governance Actions to prior election outcomes nor does it prescribe how social consensus must be achieved. It does not specify how long proposals must be discussed, where discussion must occur, how many people must agree beforehand or what level of comfort must exist prior to submission. Instead, it entrusts DReps to evaluate each Governance Action on its merits and vote accordingly.
Social consensus is therefore evaluative, not procedural. It is weighed at voting time, not enforced as a prerequisite.
I respect that DReps may reasonably disagree on risk tolerance, timing or governance norms. My intent here is simply to ensure that those discussions are grounded in what the Constitution actually requires.
In an effort to continue this discussion in an open and transparent way, several community members and I will be hosting a Constitutional Twitter Space that includes live Q&A. The Space will include governance experts and community members who were directly involved in writing the Cardano Constitution, as well as others active in governance today. The goal is not to persuade but to clarify. Details will be shared shortly, here and Twitter, and all are welcome to join.
Regards,
Christina Gianelloni
aka Musikc / InASingleWord
More about me:
www.linkedin.com/in/christina-gianelloni