Proposal: Community Council Formation

Global Community
,
1

Proposal Type: Community

Requested Budget: 2,710,000 SCR
Timeline: 6 Months
Lead Team: Scroll Foundation + Recruited Council Members

Summary

This proposal aims to establish the Community Council (CC) a dedicated group focused on supporting broad community growth and ensuring that community remains a core pillar of Scroll’s governance and ecosystem development. The CC will oversee and guide key community-driven programs, including Local Nodes, grassroots initiatives, and event grants, while maintaining alignment with Scroll’s goals and objectives.

In addition to managing and evolving the Local Nodes Framework, the CC will play a strategic role in shaping how the Scroll community grows, participates, and contributes from advising local leaders to foster new initiatives that drive meaningful ecosystem engagement.

Motivation

Since the rollout of the Local Nodes program, demand for a structured oversight and support mechanism has become increasingly clear. A number of proposals have surfaced, but decentralized evaluation, feedback loops, and ongoing advisory have remained limited and centralized.

The Community Council would enable:

  • A clear point of contact for Local Node leaders,
  • A distributed and accountable evaluation process,
  • Long-term sustainability of the Local Nodes framework.

Additionally, a lightweight event grant process managed by the CC could allow for reactive community support in regions where Scroll’s presence is emerging without overburdening the core team or DAO processes.

Execution Plan

Council Size & Commitment

  • Council size: 5 members
    • 2 Scroll Foundation members (Gov / Community team)
    • 1 Professional Community Builder
    • 2 Delegates
  • Time commitment: ~10 hours/week
  • Term duration: 6 months
  • Activation: Once 3 non-Foundation members are onboarded

Core Responsibilities

  1. Local Node Evaluation
  • Review and vote on Regional Evaluations and Local Node proposals
  • Share feedback publicly via forum comments
  • Maintain tracking sheet of evaluations and status updates
  1. Active Node Oversight
  • Review monthly reports from active nodes
  • Maintain updated node KPI tracker (Karma, metrics, outcomes)
  • Flag concerns, risks, or exceptional performance to the DAO
  1. Framework Maintenance
  • Propose edits or improvements to the LN Framework and Expectations document
  • Hold feedback sessions with Local Node leads
  • Submit quarterly updates to DAO Forum summarizing changes or needs
  1. Community Support Grants Allocation (Optional Expansion)
  • Pilot a simple community grant stream (max 50,000 SCR per event)
  • Evaluate proposals with clear alignment to Scroll values
  • Ensure geographic diversity and transparency

Governance, Voting & Budget

The CC would be able to use its budget to approve new community growth initiatives. After the first 6 months, the council will need to produce a charter that outlines its duties and relevant governance processes. This charter will be needed to request more budget or to extend its window of activity beyond the first 6 months if there is remaining budget.

To start, the multi-sig will be managed by the Foundation. The charter that will be created in these first 6 months will outline a future policy for the multi-sig.

Budget Request :link:

  • Total: 2,600,000 SCR
    • ~390,000 SCR allocated for operational costs (stipends, tools, reporting infra)
    • ~1,920,000 SCR reserved for Local Node Operations
    • ~400,000 SCR for Community Support Grants (optional)

Decision-Making

  • Quorum: 3 out of 5 votes to approve
  • High-stakes decisions (e.g., >50,000 SCR): 4/5 votes required
  • Transparency:
    • Monthly meeting notes posted within 3 business days
    • Public tracker of evaluations, decisions, and active node statuses
    • Grant approvals posted to forum within 48 hours

If any of the 2.17m SCR is needed for anything besides a community growth initiative, then EGC members can put forth a proposal that would require a 4/5 vote and would need to clear a 3 business day veto window (if there is at least 25% voting against this non-community growth spend in the veto, then it does not pass).

Passing this proposal is not a commitment to spend these funds no matter what. If this proposal does pass, that means the CC has up to these amounts to spend. Any funds not used will be returned to the DAO treasury.

Timeline

Month Milestone
0 - 1 Council recruited & approved
Council begins: reviews active nodes & pending proposals
2 - 3 First feedback round + framework audit
Optional pilot of event grants
4–5 Continued node advisory, 1:1 calls, monthly tracking
6 Final report + proposal for renewal/expansion

Charter Expectations

Before renewal, the Community Council will deliver a charter outlining:

  • Long-term scope (Local Nodes + Grants + more)
  • Term limits and re-appointment process
  • Budget escalation thresholds
  • Integration with Foundation, DAO governance, and other Councils
  • Future multi-sig signers and guidelines

Evaluation Criteria

Success for the Community Council in its first 6 months will be evaluated by:

  • :white_check_mark: Local Node evaluation turnaround time (≤10 days average)
  • :white_check_mark: 100% of active node reports reviewed + responded to
  • :white_check_mark: Framework improvements proposed or implemented
  • :white_check_mark: Public meeting notes shared consistently
  • :white_check_mark: Event grants (if applicable): # of regions supported, feedback from recipients
  • :white_check_mark: Community satisfaction survey or feedback snapshot

Conclusion

This proposal introduces a focused, lightweight Council that can take over key operational responsibilities around Local Nodes while experimenting with broader community support mechanisms. With clear responsibilities, and transparent processes, the Community Council can strengthen Scroll DAO’s community-driven infrastructure and prepare for more scalable governance going forward.

10 Likes
2

Shouldn’t this say “besides a community initiative”?

1 Like
3

what number? just says %

1 Like
4

Re Evaluation criteria
It should be paired with the KPI package the Foundation sent to Local Nodes. And there should be a clear differentiator on what added value the Community Council gives to the nodes so they can achieve more than without the CC.

3 Likes
5

Thank you @Juansito for this proposal. You’ve been key for the formation, feedback, and empowerment to create local nodes.

@connormcmk @benibauer @0xDonPepe and other people were today at Proposal Bonanza call led by Connor. We reviewed this proposal and played it with the negation game.

My rationale from the negation game link is: https://play.negationgame.com/s/scroll/rationale/abh3xpu8358J1YdgW1lpC

A TLDR:

I support having a Scroll body that is focused on:

  • analyzing and evaluating local nodes,
  • listening to their needs and providing value to them,
  • connecting local nodes between each other to share experience, insights, and resources as well with other actors that can improve local nodes results.

However, this proposal still requires to be enriched. The Negation Game of today will surely allow @Juansito to improve the proposal and get it passed.

Some key things I’d like to be added:

  • treausury management. The use of funds meanwhile not being used to generate yield AND/OR the swapping of a good portion of funds to derisk against a decay on liquidity so to ensure a well-paid work for the team members of this body.
  • election of members. How will members be chosen?
  • specific responsibilities from this body that will add value to the local nodes
7 Likes
6

I apologize if this has been explained elsewhere, but how would council members be appointed, and what compensation would they receive?

2 Likes
7

Thanks for this proposal.

I like the concept and also believe it will be more effective than what we have now. A few things I wanted to add, if I may:

We need to request that the council prepare the evaluation criteria/framework, keeping it as objective as possible. (I understand that this may be implicit in item 3, but I wanted to make it explicit.)

Happy to collaborate on this!

2 Likes
8

I’m really encouraged by the direction of this proposal and how it prioritizes structure, transparency, and sustainability for Scroll’s community layer. From what I’ve seen working across several DAOs and contributor-led ecosystems, having a dedicated Community Council can make a real difference in aligning grassroots energy with governance priorities not just by managing programs, but by setting a tone of trust and accountability.

One idea I’d humbly like to suggest is the introduction of a “Community Signals Dashboard”, a simple, public-facing tool that tracks Local Node activity and engagement using metrics like event turnout, developer participation, NPS (Net Promoter Score), localization impact, and more. This could be powered by tools like Karma, Dework, or Coordinape. It would give delegates better visibility, help Node leaders learn from one another, and make it easier to reward meaningful contributions with context, not just numbers.

My intention is not to add complexity but to strengthen the feedback loop between the Scroll DAO and its most active community members. I believe this kind of system can help us model the open, values-driven culture we want to scale across the ecosystem.

6 Likes
9

Thanks for sharing, looks like a very solid proposal!
I support the idea of setting up a dedicated council for local nodes and potentially for a community grants program. Given the workload involved in launching and assessing node proposals, this setup makes much sense.

The proposed council composition and responsibilities seem reasonable, and it’s good to see evaluation criteria included. The 6-month term is a good starting point, and I especially like the plan to create a charter to define the longer-term scope and renewal process.

As @HumbertoBesso noted, the budget breakdown could be a bit more detailed, e.g., whether node funding and future grants are already included. Also support @GozmanGonzalez’s idea for a community dashboard.

6 Likes
10

We believe this is a strong and timely proposal, forming the Community Council represents an important step forward in structuring and scaling Scroll’s community ecosystem. We think that will be a great step to promote more events of Scroll in some regions and the community council will contribute a lot with the local nodes success.
We’d love to see more about the chosen process to the community council. Some guidelines and rules to the events. Overall, we are excited to see this help Scroll scale with stronger community.

2 Likes
11

Created a brief rationale around this one, which you can find here:

4 Likes
12

Similar to the negation game shared by @HumbertoBesso, we too initially had concerns about potential overlap with the EGC. But after discussion within Pagoda we came to the conclusion that local nodes do have unique local community needs that should have a different set of distinct considerations from general ecosystem growth. Evaluating local nodes require deep understanding of the local context, cultural nuances, regulatory environments, and existing Web3 ecosystems that can only be appreciated through specialized focus (that will be too much work for the EGC to carry out). The council’s ability to build this holistic understanding of each local ecosystem will be valuable for the broader Scroll community.

We’d like to suggest reframing “Active Node Oversight” to focus more on “facilitating” and supporting local nodes rather than having them “report” to the council. The council should work collaboratively with local communities to identify win-win scenarios that benefit both the local ecosystem and Scroll, fostering value-aligned builders rather than potentially creating extraction-focused relationships.

Our main request is clarification on the selection criteria for council members, particularly regarding potential conflicts of interest for active delegates who may also be interested in starting local nodes.

Overall, we are definitely in favor of having such a council. With these points addressed, we’d be more than happy to endorse the proposal.

3 Likes
13

Thank you, @Juansito, for taking the time to put this proposal together.

My only concern is that approving it might mean moving away from the essence of community empowerment in decision-making.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that once the Community Council takes over, there won’t be any voting processes like the ones we’ve had so far regarding local nodes. It feels like all decision-making would fall solely to the Council, and we might lose the kind of community engagement and feedback we’ve seen up to now.

2 Likes
14

Thank you, @Juansito for this proposal. This will allow for a dedicated council to address and report on Local Nodes’ activities and needs, which I see as important to provide the needed support to the Local Node teams, and provide a conduction to the DAO.

I do see a need for addressing not only tracking the outcome of the Local Nodes KPI’s (and therefore reporting of it, into a dashboard that @GozmanGonzalez suggested) would be the easiest way to view across all Local Nodes statuses and outcomes. But to also include in this proposal a focused strategy by the CC on what Local Nodes geo locations are prioritized.

Personally, I see the current Local Nodes submissions as very optimistic, and not a focus by the DAO on what geo areas we are lacking and prioritization to focus on for each Season that is based upon the most growth potential.

I also echo a couple of previous comments regarding selection process for the council participants (i.e. skill requirements, potential conflict of interest resolutions, election/appointment).

I would like to see more details in the budget, specifically the 390,000 SCR for operational costs and 1,920,000 SCR for Local Node Operations. Can you please break this down further into costs for each expenditure?

2 Likes
15

Hi! We are overall supportive of the proposed Community Council (CC) since it aligns with the prior and upcoming governance design which aims to have specialized structures to handle operations effectively.

Being that said we do have some questions and early thoughts:

Assuming this is the CC executing the budget txs to Local Nodes, that should be clearly stated within the responsabilities as direct funds management.

image

Also, the budget is also pressuming the creation of new Local Nodes as well as extensions. We think the CC should grow gradually on scope and budget as more Local Nodes are presented and approved given that the proposal itself stated a strict 3-month duration for Local Nodes. Although naturally timelines might not exactly match, given that voting cycles are monthly there should be time to adjust accordingly or even retroactively.

This is item certainly interesting given that not all communities have a Local Node representing them, although the endgame is precisely to have Local Nodes in as many countries as possible.

We’d be supportive of including the mentioned budget into the CC but with some specifications refered to what the grant requests should be about exactly. I.e - the Lido Community Lifeguards have a similar inititative of “micro-community grants” that on a first round aimed to resources (tutorial, videos, etc) and then a second one refered to tooling. This approach should provide more context to applicants while allowing the DAO to focus on specific areas/content.

image

Also could you refer to the utilization of Talent Protocol within the initiative, assuming that the Karma GAP will serve as the tracking dashboard purpouse mentioned by several delegates.

Thanks!

4 Likes
16

Hello everyone,

First and foremost, VERY happy to see so much activity, feedback and love been thrown at this proposal. Excited to see the gears running for it. I will reply to all the feedback in 2 parts. First, I will address all feedback brought up through the forum. Each line item is a piece of feedback and followed with it my thoughts and clarifications.

Forum Feedback:

  • Language update on "If any of the 2.17m SCR is needed for anything besides a community initiative,”
  • what number? just says %
    • 100% of active node reports reviewed + responded to
  • Re Evaluation criteria
    • It should be paired with the KPI package the Foundation sent to Local Nodes. And there should be a clear differentiator on what added value the Community Council gives to the nodes so they can achieve more than without the CC.
      • KPIs for Local Nodes are more oriented towards making sure that Local Nodes operate on a specific direction. So far as we have already seen these KPIs can rapidly change, based on changes in direction or other external factors.
      • CC benefits for Local Nodes:
        • will abstract future local nodes from having to go through DAO voting life cycle
          • Delegates won’t be required to provide feedback, endorse, and vote on every specific local node proposal
            • Any delegate that wants to provide feedback will have the opportunity to do so through the forum posts by new Local Node proposals
          • Process for Local Node applicants will be more expedited and efficient
        • Evaluation and advise will be less biased and more direct
          • Different profiles conforming the CC will be able to give multiple POVs
          • The capacity of providing direct feedback from an entity and not one specific person
        • Guidance and support
          • A structure of reputable community leaders to lead and guide Local Nodes in their journey
          • Its a joint effort of success for both CC and Local Nodes
        • Ability to becoming more flexible
          • Updating direction as we go
          • Flexibility in execution
  • Some key things I’d like to be added:
    • Treasury management. The use of funds meanwhile not being used to generate yield AND/OR the swapping of a good portion of funds to derisk against a decay on liquidity so to ensure a well-paid work for the team members of this body.
      • We can discuss a periodical payout, to avoid the unnecessary allocation of funds. However, with no treasury management yet in place this has little to no effect.
      • Funds that are planned to be spent should not be placed into any treasury management.
      • Treasury management RFP should be out by the end of July, with a solid treasury management strategy we could evaluate different ways to solve this.
      • Any other solutions come to mind?
    • election of members. How will members be chosen?
      • Scroll Foundation will lead the initial selection of members focused on:
        • Community growth experience
        • Grants program experience
        • Nice to have - global context
        • Local Node operators can not be part of the CC, and active CC members will not be able to propose a Local Node
      • Future selection process should be a part of the CC Charter proposed before renewal
    • specific responsibilities from this body that will add value to the local nodes
      • Local Node Evaluation
        • With a more robust council we aim to have more solid feedback being shared from the get go
        • Also expanding the bandwidth of how much we are able to process and how fast we can process it
      • Active Node Oversight and Support
        • Local Node success management, making sure they are successful
        • Reporting back to the DAO about the progress and outcomes of Local Node initiatives
        • Overseeing all operational setup needs, including legal contracts, payouts, tooling setup (f.e. Karma GAP).
      • Framework Maintenance
        • Making sure we are continuously evolving
        • Correcting blockers and pain points for Local Node operators
        • Make the process of running a Local Node as fruitful as possible
  • Make the budget more visible.
  • introduction of a “Community Signals Dashboard”
    • We have Karma GAP to showcase the updates and milestones of all Local Node activities
    • Karma GAP is still being setup and should be ready to share more widely with the DAO in the comming weeks.
    • and we are proposing the addition of Talent Protocol as a dashboard of Builder Concentration
  • Local nodes do have unique local community needs that should have a different set of distinct considerations from general ecosystem growth. Evaluating local nodes require deep understanding of the local context, cultural nuances, regulatory environments, and existing Web3 ecosystems that can only be appreciated through specialized focus (that will be too much work for the EGC to carry out). The council’s ability to build this holistic understanding of each local ecosystem will be valuable for the broader Scroll community.
  • “Active Node Oversight” to focus more on “facilitating” and supporting local nodes rather than having them “report” to the council.
    • Same intention with different wording. Council is meant to be a partner and guide for Local Nodes. Its a joint effort to make the initiative become successful.
  • There won’t be any voting processes like the ones we’ve had so far regarding local nodes.
    • This shift is intentional. Removing the requirement for the DAO to vote on each individual Local Node proposal. However, the feedback loop should remain intact. Community members should still have the opportunity to provide input on proposals, even if the approval process shifts to the Community Council (CC).
    • Importantly, the DAO still retains ultimate authority: it can veto decisions made by the CC or even halt CC operations entirely if it determines that goals are not being met.
  • Include in this proposal a focused strategy by the CC on what Local Nodes geo locations are prioritized.
    • Geographical priorities remain the same with Malaysia, Korea, Kenya and Brazil being the top 4 regions we would aim efforts for. 2 of which already have operating Local Nodes.
    • I want to assume the CC will strike a balance of how many Local Nodes are being run in each region. This meaning we wouldn’t have 10 running nodes in Latam and only 1 in Africa. It is important to mention that, Local Nodes will be opened and supported where the mix of conditions are met but overall where there is an interested team with proper execution plans.
  • Executing budget txs is part of the Local Nodes responsibilities.
    • This should definitely be highlighted as part of the responsibilities of the CC, which has other operational things to worry about. For example, contract signing, KYC, tooling setup (Karma GAP), etc.
  • We think the CC should grow gradually on scope and budget as more Local Nodes are presented and approved given that the proposal itself stated a strict 3-month duration for Local Nodes.
    • Strongly believe that setting a max cap budget for a 6 month period enables a couple of things:
      • It is not realistic to just open as many Local Nodes as possible. We think there will be a max amount of running Local Nodes specially as we start ramping up the initiative.
      • This gives some flexibility, and encourages lower budget proposals. We would like to see more lower budget proposals that maximize on potential and less on budget.
      • From past experience, 6 months of attending Ethereum events worldwide can cost over $1 million. The current requested budget is much more comprehensive and intentional.
  • We’d be supportive of including the mentioned budget into the CC but with some specifications referred to what the grant requests should be about exactly.
    • Community Support Grants are aimed for 4 verticals also dissected on the detailed budget:

      • Events, Meetups, Hackathons, Flex.

        image
        image760×425 26.6 KB

      • The sort of applications I foresee being a part of this grants pilot program are community activations with communities that we have had an amazing experience with in the past and perhaps they are not ready for a Local Node and we do not have available budget from the Labs side to run these initiatives.

      • We have had many requests for events coming through to the foundation but did not have a structure to have these proposals evaluated or processed.

      • We believe that it is important for Scroll’s success to remain supportive of those grassroots relationships we have built over time.

      • We can work on a more detailed Grants proposal breakdown would help in clarifying further.

  • Refer to the utilization of Talent Protocol within the initiative.
    • We see strong potential for collaboration with the Talent Protocol team to create a hub where builders engaged by Local Nodes and Scroll can feel part of a larger ecosystem.
    • Talent Protocol will enable us to better understand and support our builder user base. Helping us design targeted programs, incentive rounds, or even friendly competitions between regions based on the quality and progress of the talent they’re fostering.

Please take a look and comment further, happy to expand on any specific item.

@coffee-crusher
@EthereumTGU
@Pagoda
@connormcmk
@ModularCrypto
@bitblondy
@GozmanGonzalez
@jameskbh
@jkm.eth
@SEEDGov

7 Likes
17

Additionally, here are my thoughts with regard to feedback items brought up through Negation Games hosted last week.

Negation Game:

  • Payments for members is defined in SCR, which could be a volatile source of payment in a bear market
    • SCR should be the value behind collaborators within the DAO
    • We now have ways to spend SCR directly, f.e. EtherFi Cash
    • As of now, this is how the Foundation thinks about this particular topic. We understand it is a concern in general for all compensation conversations, we would like to hear other opportunities or options proposed by the DAO.
  • The community council formation proposal doesn’t specify how council members are chosen
    • Initially council formation will be selected through an open application and selection led by Scroll Foundation.
    • Community Council Charter should include the updated process for council selection and multisig guidelines
  • There’s already an EGC, so this produces overlap between the activities of the two groups, and grants a larger budget to the CC
    • The issue of overlap is debatable. While the Ecosystem Growth Council (EGC) focuses on broad ecosystem initiatives, the proposed Community Council (CC) is oriented toward localized, community-driven growth, a distinct pillar of Scroll DAO’s broader goals.
    • The CC supports Scroll DAO’s vision of developing around three core pillars: Governance, Ecosystem, and Community. Its scope complements, rather than duplicates, that of the EGC.
    • As for the budget, the proposed amount is tied to pre-structured initiatives (e.g., Local Nodes, community grants) that already come with detailed planning and expected costs. In contrast, the EGC’s budget is more open-ended, meant to fund new initiatives.
    • In both cases, we expect funds to be spent responsibly, and any unspent funds should be returned to the DAO treasury.
  • Local Node evaluation should be overseen by the Growth Council, instead of by a new Community Council
    • While Local Nodes do contribute to ecosystem growth, their essence is deeply rooted in community building and localized engagement, which aligns more naturally with the CC’s mandate.
    • We’re also mindful that the EGC already has a wide scope of responsibilities, and adding Local Node oversight could dilute its focus.
    • Initially, the CC will handle Local Node evaluation and a Community Grant Program, but we anticipate additional initiatives emerging that are more suitable for a Community-focused body than a general-purpose growth council.
  • A council of 5 people to follow up Local Node initiatives is excessive, a single person could be sufficient.
    • The purpose of the Community Council (CC) is to ensure decentralized oversight, transparency, and accountability. Relying on a single individual would centralize decision-making and go against the ethos of DAO governance.
    • We’ve already experienced the limitations of having one person manage Local Node operations — the workload, complexity, and need for constant context-switching make it unsustainable.
    • On a personal note: Assuming a single individual will always retain full context is unrealistic and risky. If I were to leave Scroll, there’s currently no one who could seamlessly take over. Establishing a council ensures continuity, knowledge-sharing, and the longevity of the Local Nodes program beyond any one contributor.
    • Moreover, a multi-member council enables more balanced, objective decision-making, especially when providing feedback and evaluation to nodes and community proposals.
  • Success criteria should state 100% of active node reports are reviewed and responded to
    • Agree. Should update language.
  • The proposal doesn’t state how many meetings per month the council will host
    • The CC should be able to join every week for the weekly governance calls to give a short update on its operation.
    • Scheduling one monthly call for an extended report version of everything related to the CC’s activities.
  • 6 months is too long of an evaluation period. As Local Nodes are a 3 month evaluation period, CC should align with that (giving 3-4 months to final report)
    • I think assuring a medium length for the life of the CC will be essential for the evolution of itself. There also are initiatives within the next 6 months that the CC would play a crucial role in, f.e. Devconnect.
    • It is very important for the success of this proposal to run for an extended period of time. It will take some time to get gears running, evaluate new processes, pickup on backlogged responsibilities, and more.
    • It is important to note, that the DAO remains the main authority and can halt or request for a change of direction in CC operations at any given time.
  • 3 business day veto window is too short for vetoing non-Local Nodes initiatives
    • What would be a longer recommended window and why?
  • Success criteria for CC is insufficient doesn’t specify specific metrics or outcomes, nor does it reference any KPIs
    • Outcomes:
      • Successful Local Node operations: defined by Local Nodes being able to meet their KPIs
      • Global Presence: Continuing to be present in global activations either through Local Nodes or through Community Grants
      • Community Distribution and Context: Being able to distribute our programs efficiently with the world, and bringing the context to both the Foundation and labs to build new programs
      • What KPIs would you suggest?
  • 3/5 votes is a poor quorum threshold for the CC
    • We are also discussing lowering the amount of members that take part of the CC so in that case what would it look like?

@connormcmk
@0xDonPepe
@HumbertoBesso
@benibauer

5 Likes
18

Forming a Community Council is a natural and necessary step as Scroll’s ecosystem matures, a council that provides structure and continuity in decision-making and ensure diverse voices from across the community are heard, having transparency, inclusivity and maintaining alignment with Scroll’s core principles.

I feel this is a strong mechanism to keep the community engaged and to avoid centralization while still improving efficiency.

I would like to add a few suggestions though:

  • Publish clear criteria and a timeline for council member selection to avoid ambiguity.
  • Include term limits or rotation policies to keep fresh perspectives coming in over time.
  • Regular public feedback session before the first slate of members is finalized.

Looking forward to seeing this move forward!

2 Likes
19

I added more to the Negation Game to address more thoughts I had regarding the proposal:

2 Likes
20

Thank you, @Juansito for this Community Council proposal. We appreciate the effort and the detailed responses to the community’s feedback. While we see the value in a dedicated council for community growth, from what we understand, the EGC council focuses more on broader ecosystem growth and oversees the bigger picture, while the CC council is intended to focus on local nodes and smaller, grassroots initiatives, is that a correct understanding of the intended distinction?

We still have concerns about the potential for overlap in responsibilities with the Ecosystem Growth Council (EGC). To ensure clear scope and avoid duplication of efforts, which will be crucial for efficiency and resource allocation, we would like to have further clarification. How will you definitively define which specific activities and proposals fall into the CC’s scope versus the EGC’s? Furthermore, we would like to understand the system of veto more clearly, how many delegates are required to initiate or successfully pass a veto on decisions made by the Community Council?

We look forward to this initiative after these details are clear.

3 Likes