Proposal: Community Council Formation

Global Community
,
25

Hello again everyone,

Addressing some of the latest feedback posted on the forum.

  • Publish clear criteria and a timeline for council member selection to avoid ambiguity.
    • Role Specifics:
      • 1 professional community builder, 2 elected/appointed delegates
        • Community Council members cannot be active members of any Local Node at any capacity
      • 6 month comp average: $19,500
      • 10 hrs per week
    • Criteria:
      • Community building expertise, major selection criteria, being able to understand the ins and outs of growing community in the Layer 2 and broader Ethereum ecosystem
      • Grants program experience, nice to have for at least 1 of the 3 selected members
      • Strategic oversight, aligning CC initiatives with broader DAO and global alignment
    • Timeline:
      • Application start - August 11
      • Interview stage - August 11 - 20
      • Final decisions - August 21
      • Veto window - August 21 - 23
      • Council Start date - August 24
  • Include term limits or rotation policies to keep fresh perspectives coming in over time.
    • This will be addressed in the CC Charter, the updated selection process no longer led by the Foundation unless there is reason for it.
  • Regular public feedback session before the first slate of members is finalized.
    • Not sure what sort of feedback sessions these are referring to. cc @PauloGouveia
  • How will you definitively define which specific activities and proposals fall into the CC’s scope versus the EGC’s?
    • The EGC and CC will both work toward the same overarching mission of growing Scroll’s ecosystem, but their approaches are fundamentally different. What’s important is that their efforts are aligned, which opens the door for collaboration and cross-pollination. For example, I don’t see the CC directly issuing grants to ecosystem projects, that remains within the EGC’s scope. Instead, Local Nodes supported by the CC may identify promising teams that could benefit from EGC programs. Likewise, while the EGC might not fund community events, the CC could request recommendations from the EGC on which projects to highlight during those events. In this way, the CC can serve as a distribution and amplification channel for EGC initiatives, while the EGC can benefit from the grassroots insights gathered by the CC. Ultimately, each council will have its own scope and responsibilities, but both will be working in the same direction to strengthening Scroll’s ecosystem from different angles.
  • How will Veto Process work.
  • CC acting as a support system
    • I would also argue it is very much a supervisory system. Both hold true as both are the combination for success of the program. It’s also important that the CC protects the interests of the DAO despite any conflict of interests.
  • It would also be helpful to explicitly state how the CC will handle scenarios where applicants or evaluators have ties (formal or informal) to Local Node applicants, especially in small or emerging Web3 communities.
    • The Local Node Framework already outlines the general criteria we expect from applicants. To further ensure fairness, the Community Council’s structure comprising five members helps decentralize decision-making and mitigate individual bias. In cases where a Council member has formal or informal ties to a Local Node applicant, they will be expected to recuse themselves from the evaluation process to maintain transparency and objectivity.
  • While I understand a full strategy is coming soon, even a basic framework for how idle funds will be held in the short term would be helpful. Treasury efficiency and security are critical in early-stage growth.
    • Safe with funds for Community Council will remain in custody of Scroll Foundation. As previously stated, the budget should remain available. As part of the CC Charter it should be evaluated on how the future management of the multisig should work. This general multisig policy applies for any council created in the short term, and the decentralization of it will be up for discussion in the near future for future iterations of these councils.
  • 25% of what? of the amount of tokens that vote VETO?
    • A veto must fulfill certain conditions:
      • A veto should reach general quorum (2.1m SCR) including abstention wallet (500k SCR)
      • At least 25% of the delegate votes in favor of the veto (400k SCR)
    • cc @eugene to expand or clarify further if needed.

Additional items to clarify upon:

  • Budget should be finalized closer to the end of the month in terms of final SCR amount based on the latest average had for the month. We will use July’s month average price of SCR for the final budget distribution.
  • An updated version of the full proposal will be posted through the week in order to incorporate feedback provided by delegates and prepare the proposal for the voting cycle in August.
  • This proposal still requires at least 3 endorsements from delegates. Delegates directly contributing to an active Local Node or having publicly published a proposal for a Local Node will not count towards the endorsement threshold. We still encourage all delegates to provide feedback at any stage of the process.

Thanks everyone for the amazing feedback!

10 Likes