After reading CIP 1694, I have the following thoughts and concerns:
- I appreciate the fact that the constitutional board doesn’t have too much power and that the community can vote them out. But I would like to know the exact entities that will be part of the initial board.
- I also wonder how the initial parameters of the voting will be determined and if there will be any trial time for these parameters before they are enacted.
Based on the implementation description in CIP-1694, we can expect that current genesis stake-key holders (IOG, Emurgo, CF) will be on the committee for sure (how many seats each? One per org? One per current genesis stake key (trade a key for a seat)?)
Given that the Motion of no-confidence governance action won’t be available in the initial implementation, and that the only voting in the initial implementation will be from the committee (SPOs vote on hardforks, obviously, since there is a requirement to recognize their veto power) I think the makeup of the rest of the committee is highly dependent on the timing of CIP-1694 being approved and implemented, and the parallel development of the MBO and its 4 initial working groups. If those working groups are able to bootstrap some legitimacy, I would expect they will appoint an additional number of ex-officio seats to the constitutional committee, at least 1 per working group.
If I was a betting man, I would put my money on the initial committee being 7 members from the 3 founding entities upon initial approval and implementation of the CIP (no real change in decisionmaking in practice, except that all 7 seats will likely not be delegated to IOG). Once the hardfork for Voltaire is implemented and governance actions can be ratified with this coordination mechanism, they will take the temperature of the dRep protocol, see what signups and engagement looks like. If dReps and the MBO are developing in a healthy way (legitimate working groups for the MBO, adequate estimated AVST for dReps), Phase 2 of implementation would reorganize the membership and quorum of the committee (adding seats for “engaged community members”, likely appointees from the 4 MBO working groups, possibly a CIP editor or two, maybe appointees from community founded working groups), as well as adding the motion of no-confidence to the available governance actions… one possible roadmap, at any rate.
great info, I hope more poeple put in thoughts about this!