I've had reservations about this proposal: https://gov.optimism.io/t/security-council-vote-2-initial-member-ratification/7118/8 Since then, some of it has been addressed, but not ideally so I'm voting Abstain, and if the proposal passes (as is likely at this time) I'd like to see prompt action as promised in the responses. In future, I'd like to see involving the Token House and Citizen House for critical decisions like this, with progressively minimal unilateral decision making by OF. We've been doing this for 18 months now.
https://gov.optimism.io/t/security-council-vote-2-initial-member-ratification/7118/17?u=kaereste
We do not support voting on large bundles for important decisions, since it discourages due diligence on the part of delegates who will be overwhelmed or simply recognize that it would take a particularly egregious objection to derail the entire process. GFX does not oppose any of the individual members and is abstaining on the basis of process.
Security council members here seem experienced and credible.
We share sentiments of other delegates of hoping that governance would be involved more in this decision making process, rather than ratifying an entire final list. However, we haven’t come across any red flags with the proposed members, so are voting in agreement.
Great to see a globally diverse impressive team assembled for the Optimism Security Council. AB is excited to learn more and help spread the good word. To the moon! 🚀
voting for the proposal.
We chose to abstain from the Security Council Initial Member Ratification to advocate for progressive decentralization. Although we acknowledge the capabilities of the proposed members, we believe our collective's year-long experience in hosting elections indicates our readiness to independently conduct such elections. The 12-month term for the Security Council, however, appears excessively long comparied with other councils. Our abstention is a call for increased transparency and community involvement, while acknowledging the Foundation's efforts in addressing important delegate concerns, particularly regarding cohort selection and member replacement.
https://gov.optimism.io/t/security-council-vote-2-initial-member-ratification/7118/16?u=itublockchain
I believe the appointed members will bring improvements to the OP network.
This is one of the crucial steps towards making the governance decentralized and putting the collective in lead role, at the same time I think this proposal is rushed, @polynya and @GFXlabs comments are still unanswered. Would it possible to share the rationale behind selecting those specific candidates. Also, and I understand it’s not that simple to put this in words, what would trigger Security Council, what constitute emergency and who will decide it. Circling back to Polynya comment, what would be their removal process. If removal/election framework is still in process, my request would include both house in voting. Somewhere there is a need for a baby step in this direction and further strengthen the process, team and structure is work in progress. I am a yes for this proposal.
This is one of the crucial steps towards making the governance decentralized and putting the collective in lead role, at the same time I think this proposal is rushed, @polynya and @GFXlabs comments are still unanswered. Would it possible to share the rationale behind selecting those specific candidates. Also, and I understand it’s not that simple to put this in words, what would trigger Security Council, what constitute emergency and who will decide it. Circling back to Polynya comment, what would be their removal process. If removal/election framework is still in process, my request would include both house in voting. Somewhere there is a need for a baby step in this direction and further strengthen the process, team and structure is work in progress. I am a yes for this proposal.