PCP_committeeMinSize_Yuta

Governance Parameter Change Proposals (PCP)
1

Title

Proposal to Reduce the Minimum Constitutional Committee Size from 7 to 5

Description

This proposal seeks to modify the governance parameter committeeMinSize, which defines the minimum number of Constitutional Committee members, from 7 to 5.

The objective is to enhance the efficiency and responsiveness of the Constitutional Committee (CC) while maintaining decentralization, quorum stability, and compliance with the Cardano Constitution.
The proposed new value remains within the permitted constitutional range defined in the Guardrails Appendix (3 ≤ committeeMinSize ≤ 10).

This proposal is neutral with respect to any specific individuals or institutions and focuses solely on parameter-level governance efficiency.

4 Likes
2

Great! Thanks for the initiative @YUTA_Oishi! What’s the next step? Is this a process that will be handled mainly by the parameter committee?

1 Like
3

This is a well-considered proposal. Reducing the minimum size from 7 to 5 seems like a reasonable adjustment to improve responsiveness without compromising decentralization or stability. I support this change.

2 Likes
4

i would say we reduce it to 3 , because we dont want to be held hostage by sudden situations like at present , and thats the mininum we are allowed to choose , we can elect 5 people or 7 people , or 9 or any number , and even if the term ends of elected members it is easier to find 3 people than 5 people who everyone can agree on in emergenc situations. we can elect 5 or 7 again but chaing the para to 3 so that unless every committee members leaves we can still run the governance

5

The current value of 7 is totally fine imo. What we need is more individual CC members. So that we are more resilient against memers resigning like right now.

I would like to see at least 10 CC members.

2 Likes
6

Thank you @YUTA_Oishi for submitting this PCP.

Please find below the Parameter Committee’s response following our meeting on 4 December 2025.

Parameter Committee Response: PCP-??? (Reduction of committeeMinSize to 5)

Date: December 5, 2025

Subject: Recommendation regarding the proposal to reduce committeeMinSize from 7 to 5.

Reference: PCP_committeeMinSize_Yuta

Executive Summary

The Parameter Committee has reviewed the proposal to reduce the committeeMinSize parameter from 7 to 5. Following deliberation during the tri-weekly meeting on December 4, 2025, the Committee recommends approving this reduction.

However, the Committee advises that this change should follow the standard governance timeline. While the current operational environment is fragile, the immediate deadlock is being resolved via the upcoming “Update Committee” action. Therefore, this parameter change should be treated as a strategic resilience upgrade rather than an emergency patch, respecting the Constitutional Guardrails regarding notice periods for governance-critical parameters.

1. Current Operational Context

The Committee acknowledges the current friction in the governance system and the necessity for this change to ensure future liveness.

  • Current Status: The retirement of a Constitutional Committee (CC) member on November 25, 2025, dropped the active committee size to 6. With committeeMinSize currently set at 7, the ledger cannot currently ratify governance actions requiring CC approval. This includes protocol parameter changes as well as hard forks and treasury withdrawals.
  • Immediate Resolution: The Committee notes that Intersect is executing a snap election, with an on-chain “Update Committee” action expected on December 8. If approved by the DReps and SPOs, this will restore the active size to 7, resolving the immediate ratification blockage.
  • Strategic Necessity: While the election solves the immediate issue, it leaves the system in a fragile state where Active Members equals Minimum Required. Assuming that the desired committee size is 7, then reducing the minimum size to 5 is important to create an operational buffer for the future, preventing a single resignation from causing another deadlock.

2. Guardrail Analysis and Timeline

The Committee reviewed the proposal against the Constitutional Guardrails to ensure validity.

A. Numerical Compliance (CMS-01, CMS-02, CMS-03)

The proposed value of 5 is compliant with the established Guardrails for the Constitutional Committee size:

  • CMS-01: The value must not be negative.
  • CMS-02: The value must not be lower than 3.
  • CMS-03: The value must not exceed 10.
  • Conclusion: The proposal sits safely within the permitted range of 3 to 10.

B. Timeline and PARAM-06a

Guardrail PARAM-06a states that at least 3 months 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 governance action.

  • Recommendation: The Committee does not recommend waiving this 3-month waiting period.
  • Rationale: Since the immediate functional deadlock is being resolved by the December 8 election (restoring the committee to 7 members), the urgency to reduce the parameter immediately is mitigated. Adhering to the 3-month period ensures the community has adequate time to debate this reduction without the pressure of an active crisis.

3. Historical Context & Rationale for Reduction

Why was it set to 7?

The parameter was historically set to 7 to match the original number of Genesis keys and ensure a balance of power during the interim period. The intent was to ensure that community-elected members (originally planned as 4) could outnumber the automatically installed Founding Entities (3).

Why reduce it to 5?

  • Operational Resilience: The Committee agrees that a reduction to 5 creates a necessary safety margin for a constitutional committee of size 7. It allows the CC to function even if two members resign (assuming a full committee of 7), preventing the governance paralysis currently being experienced.
  • Security vs. Efficiency: The Committee concluded that reducing the minimum size to 5 would not be harmful or significantly increase attack vectors. However, reducing it further (e.g., to the minimum of 3 permitted by CMS-03) was strongly opposed due to the increased impact of individual decisions on governance.
  • Odd numbers preferred: The Committee considers it good practice to have a constitutional committee that has an odd number of members.

To avoid similar issues in future, the Committee does not recommend installing a constitutional committee of size 5.

The Committee considered the issue of institutional versus group members of the constitutional committee, but did not consider that this made a material difference to the minimum committee size.

4. Final Recommendation

The Parameter Committee recommends approval of the proposal to reduce committeeMinSize to 5, to be enacted following the standard notice period for governance-critical parameters.

7

Thank you very much Nicolas, I agree that it would be safer to submit it after February 12th, since the Constitution requires a minimum of three months. :folded_hands:

8

Thank you Martin, I don’t object to more CC members per se :folded_hands: but it is possible to change the minimum number of CC members to 5, but have a CC of 10 or more.

9

Thank you. I also don’t have a strong objection to ultimately reducing it to 3. The Parameter Committee is not recommending a change to 3, and considering the existence of DRep, which has a conservative stance, I think it would be better to first reduce it to 5 and then propose reducing it to 3.:folded_hands:

1 Like
10

The next step was to gather input from the parameters committee, which we have received. :folded_hands:
The next step from here requires three months of off-chain consultations, so we will continue discussions until February 12th.:folded_hands: