Proposal: Community Council Formation

[ModularCrypto]

Thanks, Juan!
Your response helped clarify things a lot. Having some of these structures and expectations pre-established definitely brings more direction and transparency to the process. Excited to see how this develops and how the Community Council can continue to bring strength to the community and the Local nodes framework of Scroll.

[GozmanGonzalez]

Thanks for putting this together. It’s exciting to see the Scroll community move toward structured, scalable support for Local Nodes. The momentum around this initiative is real, and it’s clear that the team has done the groundwork to build a model that balances impact, governance efficiency, and local autonomy.

That said, I’d like to offer a few observations and suggestions that could help strengthen the proposal and address some potential concerns from a transparency, decentralization, and operational clarity perspective.

I really appreciate that the DAO still holds the ultimate authority to override or veto CC decisions. This keeps governance decentralized while streamlining execution.

It also Positions the Council as a support system for Local Nodes rather than a supervisory body is the right tone. This encourages collaboration over compliance.

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.

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.

This feedback reflects a lot of careful planning and strong community feedback. With a bit more clarity around governance processes and treasury handling, it can become a blueprint for decentralized community scaling across the entire Web3 space. Looking forward to seeing it evolve and to the upcoming rollout.

[connormcmk]

@Juansito

(if there is at least 25% voting against this non-community growth spend in the veto, then it does not pass).

25% of what? of the amount of tokens that vote VETO?

[ZER8]

@Juansito

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.

It is clear to me and other delegates that the Community Council is an important step in ensuring the Local Nodes program delivers as intended.

@HumbertoBesso

• 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.

@Juansito

@HumbertoBesso bring forward an interesting point, if the price depreciates there is risk, but I would also add that we seem to be entering a bull market, what if the price of SCR does a 10x? Will we over pay everyone because we have not considered upside risk? I think a buffer might help solve this

4. 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

I think the optional expansion is a neat idea, especially for those that cannot often travel/get involved in the Local Nodes. As a delegate I would really like to organize events in my area(Eastern Europe) or to try to empower other event organizers to do so.

[Juansito]

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.
  • Identical to the mechanics described in the EGC Veto Process:
    Announcing the Ecosystem Growth Council (EGC)
• 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!

[HumbertoBesso]

Thanks @Juansito for this thorough proposal. It integrates the feedback received from all delegates.

As a Verified Delegate I endorse this proposal. Looking forward to seeing this proposal come to live.

[mexi]

Thanks for the proposal @Juansito, i have read all the comments and concerns from the community and your responses. Concerns I had were mentioned by others in the comments have been addressed.

I believe this proposal is very important considering it addresses these 3 points.

@Juansito

• 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.

As a Verified Delegate I endorse this proposal.

[SEEDGov]

Hi!

We’ve been following the conversation as well as capturing some feedback from delegates regarding a potential overlap between the EGC and the CC. On a first note, we understand the different nature of both initiatives which will work for the same goal at the end of the day. Community initiatives are heaviy reliant on ground-presence with all of the nuances that each region and community has.

Nonetheless, we do consider the CC to be the operational arm of Local Nodes, within it’s guidance, facilitation, overall execution and framework gatekeeper. In that sense, and given that the current CC budget already contemplates a 6 month runway for 8 local nodes, which is the best possible output given the current status of the Global Community initiatives, we think that the Community Support Grants Allocation should be set aside on this iteration up until further refinement on both the CC frameworks and the unfolding of the EGC, which can always be consulted or leveraged for any given initiative or proposal.

This should give time for leveraging the Local Nodes experience into the framework instead of preventively securing a separate budget that may or may not be executed, again given the optimal output already contemplated, while fostering collaborations within the Local Nodes themselves.

[eugene]

The Foundation team endorses this proposal

[Sinkas]

The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste, @Sinkas, and @Manugotsuka, and it’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.

While we’re in favor of streamlining the way Local Node proposals are reviewed, and it’s something we’ve brought up when voting on local node proposals in the past, we’re skeptical of creating a separate, standalone council just for that purpose.

At the same time, we’re unsure that empowering this council with more responsibilities and broadening its scope is a solid justification for the existence of this separate council, especially when there’s some mandate overlap with the Growth Council that was recently established.

One approach that could mitigate the above concerns is to effectively merge the scope of the Community Council with that of the Growth Council. Instead of creating a separate 5-member council, the Growth Council could simply add a community organiser to lead all efforts associated with Local Nodes. If the workload is too much, then an additional member (e.g., a delegate) could be added. With that in mind, the additional scope should be discussed and defined with the existing Growth Council to ensure we’re not diluting their focus and capacity.

[EthereumTGU]

Thank you @Juansito for the detailed explanation of all the points that have been brought up so far.

After all these the Ethereum TGU Community feels really good about this proposal and are happy to endorse it for the next voting cycle!

[eugene]

@Sinkas

One approach that could mitigate the above concerns is to effectively merge the scope of the Community Council with that of the Growth Council. Instead of creating a separate 5-member council, the Growth Council could simply add a community organiser to lead all efforts associated with Local Nodes. If the workload is too much, then an additional member (e.g., a delegate) could be added. With that in mind, the additional scope should be discussed and defined with the existing Growth Council to ensure we’re not diluting their focus and capacity.

I would personally push back on this. The EGC was recruited with the thought of having strong backgrounds in growth, liquidity, and granting.

My q back to you is what is the root of this concern. Is it that many ecosystems waste $ on community and we’re at risk of doing the same? Is it that we might have too many councils with unclear lines between them? Is there a different concern?

I see this (seeding community that can support and nurture the growth of devs / founders as well as creating a welcoming space for anyone to enter the ecosystem) is very different than growth.

The ‘grant’ budget portion of the community council budget is meant to solely cover community things (e.g. sponsorships, events, activations that can bring users to Scroll or our core projects, etc.).

[Matt_FactoryLabs]

Hi all,

As a delegate I support this proposal.

Given the multi-council structure of Scroll DAO, a Community Council make sense. Community is arguably, the most important part of the ecosystem and requires a dedicated resource.

This council will allow us to aggregate, interrogate and understand the insights we gain from Local Nodes. I also have no doubt, that this council will help identify new opportunities to build and solidify the community.

Cheers, Matt

[LifeofDan-EL]

The Community Council would be pivotal for keeping the Local Nodes accountable. The feedback and iterations of this proposal have been in a good light. I hereby endorse this proposal.

[coffee-crusher]

I agree with @eugene and some of the delegates comments regarding that this proposal has a defined purpose and differentiator from the EGC. The Local Nodes initiative is important to the DAO growth, and to have a focused and experienced council to work with them, is what’s needed.

However, currently I cannot endorse or be willing to vote in favor for this proposal until this is addressed:

I have to agree with @SEEDGov comments and with my opinion that the inclusion in the responsibilities and budget of the Community Support Grants pilot is too ambiguous in it’s criteria, the amount is too large for a six months pilot and it brings too much complexity to a council who are going to be responsible for onboarding, guiding and managing the six targeted Local Nodes.

That being said, I would fully endorse this proposal if the Grants pilot portion of this proposal was removed before the vote with a consideration of including this in the next iteration and review of this council program in six months.

[Juansito]

Proposal: Community Council Formation (Updated as of 7/28)

Proposal Type: Community

Requested Budget: 2,120,000 SCR (avg $0.32)

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 community support 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: Capped at 5 Members

  • 2 Scroll Foundation members (Gov / Community team)

  • 1 Professional Community Builder

  • 2 Delegates

• Time commitment: ~10 hours/week

• Term duration: 6 months

• Criteria:

  • Community building expertise, this is the 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
  • No conflict of interests with competing protocols
  • Community Council members cannot be active members of any Local Node at any capacity

• Ramp-up Dynamics:

  • Based on forum feedback, there are concerns that a five-member council may be excessive for the initial scope of work. To address this, we propose a phased approach to onboarding council members.
  • We will begin by appointing one member, a community-building expert.
  • As the workload increases or the need for broader input arises, the council will reopen the application process to fill additional seats. This will be determined at the discretion of the council.
  • At the time of voting on this proposal, the council will have a maximum of five seats, distributed as follows:
    • 2 Scroll Foundation members (Governance/Community teams)
    • 1 professional community builder
    • 2 delegates

• Timeline:

  • Application start date - August 11
  • Interview stage - August 11 - 20
  • Final decisions - August 21
  • Veto window - August 21 - 23
  • Council start date - August 24

• Application form: https://tally.so/r/mRq1xp

Core Responsibilities

Local Node Evaluation, Oversight, and Evolution

The Local Node program is a cornerstone of Scroll’s decentralized community growth strategy, but without structured oversight and consistent support, its long-term success is at risk. The Community Council is being proposed not as an operational add-on, but as a critical governance layer to ensure the program scales with accountability, consistency, and transparency.

The responsibilities tied to Local Node governance are extensive and ongoing, and cannot be realistically sustained by a single individual or ad hoc group. These include:

• Rigorous Evaluation of Proposals

  • Local Nodes go through a two-step process: regional evaluation and individual proposals.
  • These require public feedback, due diligence, and objective scoring, all of which must be documented and communicated to the DAO and applicants.
  • A tracking system must be maintained to ensure process clarity and prevent bottlenecks or misalignment.

• Ongoing Performance Monitoring

  • Each approved node must submit monthly reports and be measured against key performance indicators (Karma dashboards, event metrics, ecosystem outcomes).
  • This data needs to be interpreted and flagged when concerns, risks, or standout performance arise. Something that directly affects disbursements and strategic guidance.

• Framework Evolution and Feedback Loops

  • As the program matures, the Local Node Framework must be updated to reflect learnings, address edge cases, and stay aligned with Scroll’s broader ecosystem goals.
  • This requires structured feedback sessions, quarterly updates to the DAO, and the creation of clear support materials for node operators.

As shared in the forum, past experience shows that a single point of contact is insufficient to handle the volume and complexity of Local Node operations. Spreading these responsibilities across a Council ensures:

• Continuity: Knowledge isn’t siloed in one individual.
• Accountability: Multiple reviewers lead to more objective, well-rounded decisions.
• Scalability: As more Local Nodes come online, the workload grows — a shared Council structure is better suited to handle it.

Ultimately, this is about making sure that Scroll’s community-led initiatives are not just launched, but monitored, guided, and continuously improved. A Council with dedicated oversight responsibilities is essential to deliver on that promise.

Local Node oversight commitments:

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
2. 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
3. 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
   • Create supporting material for Local Nodes

Community Support through a Grants Pilot

One of the most consistent pieces of feedback we receive from community members, partners, and ecosystem builders is the need for support and presence at local and global events. Despite growing interest in Scroll across regions, we currently lack any formal mechanism to financially support community-led initiatives outside of Local Nodes, like meetups, hackathons, or small conferences, even when these directly contribute to Scroll’s visibility and adoption.

• Momentum is building. With programs like Open Economy in motion and EtherFi Cash becoming Scroll’s main use case, this is the right time to be more proactive rather than conservative. Communities are reaching out to us, but without a grants mechanism, we are forced to say no or remain silent.
• Strategic events are happening. From Ethereum Mexico to Devconnect to rising grassroots activity across Africa, these are prime opportunities for Scroll to show up. But right now, we are absent.
• Our tech is ready to showcase. As our product stack and developer ecosystem mature, community-facing events are becoming increasingly valuable touchpoints to attract talent, promote native projects, and onboard users.
• This is not about large-scale funding. We’re not talking about A tier-level sponsorships ($60k+). These are often small asks: $1–5k to co-sponsor a meetup, help with sponsoring small events, or provide swag. But collectively, they create a global presence and deepen our ties with builders and users. Needless to say, this is for all of those regions and communities that perhaps are not ready for a Local Node.

The intent of the Community Council is not only to execute pre-defined tasks but to help shape the community growth strategy alongside Scroll DAO, Scroll Foundation and Up Labs. Including a grants component gives the Council the flexibility to:

• Support emerging communities aligned with our goals
• Reward ongoing grassroots efforts
• Build trust and maintain relationships with local leaders
• Fill gaps where Scroll’s presence is currently missing

Community Support Grant commitments:

1. Pilot a simple community grant stream (max 50,000 SCR per event)
2. Evaluate proposals with clear alignment to Scroll values
3. Ensure geographic diversity and transparency
4. Criteria for selection and distribution to be determined within the council

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

• Budget Breakdown: Community Council Budget - Google Sheets
• Budget has been updated as of 7/28 with the average rate of the past 7 days of $0.32 <> 1 SCR. Final SCR amount will be taken into account during the time of disbursement after being approved, using the past 7 day average.
• Total: 2,120,000 SCR
  • ~301,000 SCR allocated for operational costs (stipends, tools, reporting infra)
  • ~1,500,000 SCR reserved for Local Node Operations
  • ~312,000 SCR for Community Support Grants
• Budget in USD: $678,400

Internal Decision-Making

• Quorum: Simple majority to approve a proposal within the Council, f.e. 2/3 votes in favor can pass a proposal
• High-stakes decisions (e.g., >50,000 SCR): Unanimous decision is required to pass high-stakes decisions, f.e. 3/3 votes in favor can pass a proposal
• 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 1.8m SCR is needed for anything besides a community growth initiative, then CC members can put forth a proposal that would require a Unanimous 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.

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

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

Evaluation Criteria

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

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

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.

[Juansito]

Hello there,

Again appreciate everyone’s feedback. I am very happy that the CC is getting the attention it has gotten so far. I have made updates to the general proposal above with the main feedback items that have been discussed throughout this forum thread.

Some things to note:

1. Some of the latest feedback revolves around the need of a 5 seat council for the initial scope of work the CC is proposing. For this matter I have added an updated phased approach on how to ramp-up seats based on the CC’s evolving needs.
2. Another big piece of feedback revolves around the Community Support Grants structure. The following replies reflect my personal thoughts in the matter. The explanations within the updated proposal are in consensus with the rest of the Gov and Community teams. Three main items for this particular topic:
   • The CC has enough responsibilities and budget to execute and should avoid adding more responsibilities: To this I feel very strongly in the sense that Scroll has been very proactive in supporting the grassroots communities all over the world, and we currently do not have any available funding mechanisms to continue supporting those communities that have without a doubt supported Scroll’s journey. Additionally, we are in a prime position to push community activations forward, with the use case of EtherFi Cash and the involvement of a larger audience in Open Economy, community activations effectively become distribution channels for what is working best at Scroll. All of this is to be considered for those communities that perhaps don’t fall within the scope of a Local Node.
   • The other piece of feedback revolved around sharing clear criteria and program scheme for the Community Support Grants Pilot. My vision here was for the council to come up with the mechanics and criteria, the main reason being that it made more sense to create a Community Council comprised of internal and external, to Scroll, points of view that could come up with a much more robust and efficient grants program. If I were to plan out the whole program and additionally already have essentially planned out the Local Nodes initiative as a whole, then the CC becomes an execution committee for my ideas, which is not the intention.

• Budget wise, the whole program for the next 6 months consists of $100k. This allocation is meant to be used exclusively on community related activations, meetups, hackathons, events, education, etc. And we expect to fund smaller things, $1-5k in average. Who to support? Communities in regions of interest, communities that uphold a strong relationship with Scroll, emerging grassroots communities with aligned values with Scroll.

I hope to have addressed most feedback. For any remaining pieces of feedback or discussion items, I will be joining the second governance call on Wednesday 7/30 to chat further on the proposal, or if you want to jump on a call to dive deeper on the proposal, feel free to DM me on TG: @juansit0x

cc @SEEDGov @coffee-crusher @Sinkas as I have addressed some of your latest feedback above.

Thanks to all delegates who have endorsed this proposal so far. Upon discussion with the Gov and Community team, we will be moving this proposal forward to a vote since it has already collected enough endorsement to be a part of the August voting cycle.

[404Gov]

Although this proposal has already met the 3-delegate endorsement threshold, we reviewed it and would like to formally add our endorsement as a verified delegate.

[jameskbh]

I beleive that makes sense to have a council explicitly focused on community, as it will push for initiatives on that front. The introduction of a professional community builder is also something interesting, as in theory, it would help to the council to focus on things that work, cutting down the strategy development/testing time.

Overall, a great initiative.

[ZER8]

I fully endorse this proposal and as someone who has funded events I am excited to apply as a member of the council