Serve time, in terms or years, is generally instituted and forced to induce change and prevent abuse.
Should the Constitutional Committee be replaced with fresh talent every N period?
Twitter poll recommends short spans.
The only way to measure how damage is done by hard term-limits is to wait for an organisation to die. Any viable organisation is the result of equilibrium between old and new influence which relies on both poles to maintain these two types of focus as I have found described well here:
Thanks to Michael Peyton-Jones for retweeting this chart where I found it just a few hours before this question was asked: https://twitter.com/johncutlefish/status/1643143415377563648
2 Likes
Terms of a year would be excessive don’t you think? For comparison, the Polkadot Council’s term is 7 days. Perhaps a quarter would be more appropriate.
Yes, it should rotate, every 74-148 Epochs, or on a hard fork basis, depending on the context. I believe this should be based on and defined as the protocol measures time.
There’s already reason for concern or inquiry into everything about CIP-1694, particularly what seems to be a committee sign up and nominate sheet.
The Cardano Constitution Working Group was created as part of the Gimbalabs Tokenomics PBL with the intentions of exploring constitutional, manifesto type ideas to further Cardano governance, community awareness and discussion. The intent was always to include those who were interested and make all information public and actions transparent.
I hope people are exercising care and caution while engaging.