Thanks @Curia for opening this thread.
I want to offer a brief recap and share a few reflections to clarify intent, address points of confusion, and refine our shared direction.
1. Let’s start from operational needs, not assumptions.
It’s been great to see delegates mapping out potential roles, although only four of us responded to the poll that yielded these results. 
That said, if the DCP is meant to support execution, then the Foundation, Operations Committee (OC), and Accountability Committee (AC) should first articulate what support they actually need. Without that, we risk short-term bias, designing roles that prioritize visibility over systemic impact. Delegates can then step into those defined needs, rather than projecting assumed gaps.
2. The real question: where does Scroll’s work happen?
We know centralizing all execution within the Foundation is neither scalable nor aligned with Scroll’s goals (whether for regulatory or resilience reasons). That means the DAO must hold part of the operational load. The DCP was conceived as a way to house that decentralized execution. I personally proposed merging the DCP and OC structures to reduce redundancy.
Now, after some community calls, I understand that the separation (between the OC and the DCP) is intended to allow talent pools that include non-delegates to join the Operations Committee.
Although I believe there are simpler ways to resolve this (such as creating different eligibility criteria for each role), I assume that we will stick with both structures in the short/medium term.
Seen this way, if the question is: is there overlap? The answer is yes, and it is intentional: the DCP is executing work that supports OC goals.
In other words, Verified Delegates in the DCP aren’t replacing the OC; we’re augmenting it with tactical support, especially in areas that are lightweight or require specialized skill sets that don’t justify full-time positions (within the Foundation).
3. Not all roles are created equal, and that’s fine.
It’s worth clarifying that while they were originally presented together in the “Support Squad” framing, Scribe and Weaver serve different functions. The Scribe captures process documentation, meetings, and governance records. The Weaver identifies cross-cutting insights across threads, calls, and proposals. They may not both be urgent right now, but they are distinct.
In other words, the point is not to defend a particular role, but to create it based on the specific and current needs of the organization. Roles are created, changed, and destroyed. The important thing is to refine the system, not to define a perfect role.
Similarly, while “Program Coordinator” ranked high in the delegate poll, its true it may not be necessary to instantiate it within the DCP right now.
Anyway, the idea behind creating it was to highlight that this role is already being performed by someone in the Foundation or OC (and to highlight who, in order to improve accountability) and to open the door to programs that can be executed by the DAO down the line.
In summary:
- Let’s co-design DCP roles based on clearly expressed operational needs from OC/AC/Foundation.
- Let’s not fear role overlap if the intent is to support existing structures, not compete with them.
- Let’s treat role design as a dynamic process that evolves with Scroll’s maturity, not a fixed menu to launch all at once.
Appreciate everyone pushing this conversation forward 