# Proposal: Governance Council (GC) Formation **URL:** \ **Category:** Governance Iterations\ **Tags:** proposal, governance\ **Created:** [August 14, 2025, 8:54pm UTC](https://forum.scroll.io/t/proposal-governance-council-gc-formation/1071 "2025-08-14T20:54:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 4
**Author:** ![eugene](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/forum.scroll.io/eugene/32/162_2.png) [@eugene](https://forum.scroll.io/u/eugene)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2025, 2:45pm UTC](https://forum.scroll.io/t/proposal-governance-council-gc-formation/1071/4 "2025-08-15T14:45:23Z")
> [@coffee-crusher](#): > > Does “not an active member of a budget-disbursing council” mean that the candidate cannot be a current member of any council or working group? Yes, we want to limit people to one council for now. Especially considering the [sociocracy convo](https://forum.scroll.io/t/toward-a-role-based-org-chart-for-scroll/1042) that’s happening, there will likely be structures that bring folks across councils and working groups together. So we are thinking that it makes sense to avoid one person being on multiple councils for now > [@coffee-crusher](#): > > Your proposal mentions one delegate or governance professional, does that imply that this will not be a ‘split seat’, if so, I would suggested making that more explicit. Thanks for calling that out, will make it more clear. We are open to this also being a split seat. > [@coffee-crusher](#): > > For core responsibilities, I would like to see recommendations/next steps for future committee members (if this council continues after 6 months) and if it does not continue, then execution/implementation plans for the roadmap. We will make this more explicit in the revised proposal as an expected outcome / how to evaluate the council > [@coffee-crusher](#): > > And finally, the proposal doesn’t implicitly state it, but I would like to see the inclusion of the selection process (i.e. application process, interview by the Gov team, etc.) for candidates. Apologies for the omission - this will follow the same recruiting process as the other councils/working groups for now. That is to say, the Foundation will lead a transparent hiring process where applicants will fill out a form where applicants are asked if they are comfortable sharing their full application or at least their name. The results, along with the data we have consent to share will be shared in the post announcing the decision. The DAO will have a 3-business day veto begin once the forum post is made. > [@Curia](#): > > Could you clarify how proposals will be formally categorized as “within scope” for GC decision-making to prevent overlap with other councils or broader DAO governance activities? This will be part of what the GC will define with the research roadmap, which is meant to outline the specific areas of focus for research and experimentation. There may be ad hoc considerations as well. Ultimately, the scope of this council relates to researching and experimenting with ways to fundamentally improve how governance functions at Scroll DAO. When it comes to, say, educational efforts, the GC would only oversee governance related educational efforts (such as developing more materials). As currently written, the GC would NOT have the ability to approve a new [delegate accelerator](https://forum.scroll.io/t/scroll-dao-delegate-accelerator-program-execution-plan/826) as that would entail approving funds to delegate, which is not in scope as written. Let me know if you have specific scenarios or clarifications you’d like to have added --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.scroll.io/t/proposal-governance-council-gc-formation/1071)._