ARDC V2 Communications role replacement

Arbitrum Research & Development Committee (ARDC) Supervisory Council
1

With @Frisson stepping down due to him being elected into the OAT (well deserved & congrats) the ARDC needs to find a solution.

Some context:

  • the ARDC V2 6 month term will end on July 12th 2025
  • compensation for ARDC Supervisory Council members is 5.000 ARB per month (~1460 USD right now)
  • compensation is paid as a Llama Vesting stream (meaning that it can be cut off/started any day as it is paying daily)

According to the ARDC V2 proposal (version that passed on Tally)
…(in the case a Supervisory Council Member acts negligently and gets voted out)…Following this, the Supervisory Council will have an ancillary obligation to submit a call for applications for the vacant ARDC seat. The decision as to who ought to take up the vacant seat will be determined by the ArbitrumDAO via the election mechanism stipulated in this Forum Post (for intra-ARDC elections, the same RFP-Based + Application election model will be utilised).

I am not sure if the above applies in our case (@Immutablelawyer can maybe shine some light on it) but we have 4 options in my point of view

1. Hold a new election
Con:

  • lengthy (while the ARDC is running, who will pick up the slack?)

2. Next in line for Comms role gets appointed
According to the ARDC V2 Supervisory Council Snapshot from November next up would be @jameskbh followed by @pedrob

Pro:

  • faster than 1) to execute

Con:

  • still have to pass through AF’s KYC process (takes around a week - to be double checked)
  • onramping (I probably previously overstated this, but still assume 2 weeks approx.)
  • need to check if the two above mentioned candidates are still interested/have capacity

3. @Juanrah fills the full role and gets the comp for both roles
Pro:

  • quickest fix

Con:

  • Juanrah’s capacity ?
  • with me leaving the SC as well it will only be headed by Entropy and Juanrah

4. Hybrid: Juanrah fills & gets paid until someone else joins through 1 or 2
Pro:

  • quick fix and long term in line with the original proposal

We have to solve this, as we will otherwise drag the decision on & Juanrah will be pulling the weight without getting compensated for it

1 Like
2

Thank you @tamara for your leadership, initiating this discussion and presenting the options so clearly.

To help inform the decision, I’d like to share more specifics about the ARDC communications responsibilities workload:

Translating ARDC updates and research findings:

  • Regular forum posts sharing research findings and work streams from service providers
  • Communications chairs have been simplifying complex research for the community
  • Summarizing service provider work and making it accessible

Leading routine engagement between stakeholders:

  • Coordinating with OpenZeppelin, Nethermind, and Castle Capital/DefiLlama Research
  • Facilitating communication between service providers, the Supervisory Council and the Arbitrum Foundation
  • Reaching out to delegates for feedback on ARDC research initiatives

Hosting bi-weekly community calls:

  • Organizing regular delegate calls to discuss ARDC work
  • Hosting X Spaces to broaden community engagement
  • Coordinating the logistics for these calls (scheduling, agendas, etc.)
  • Ensure proper representation of service providers in public events

Developing communications strategy:

  • Creating and maintaining the ARDC communication thread in the forum
  • Setting up a Notion page to track ARDC activities and make them transparent
  • Establishing regular cadence for updates and community engagement

Creating branding and messaging guidelines:

  • Ensuring consistent presentation of ARDC research and findings while coordinating schedules with service providers
  • Maintaining consistency in how the ARDC communicates with the community

Managing press releases, media, and social media:

  • Creating X threads for research presentations
  • Ensuring timely delivery of updates to the community
  • Managing public communications about ARDC activities

With Frisson’s departure, these responsibilities would now fall to a single communications chair, likely increasing the total time commitment by 40% to 50%.

My main concern is the significant time commitment this would require. I currently balance several other professional activities alongside my ARDC role, and while I’m fully committed to fulfilling my responsibilities to the DAO, taking on the full communications workload would require me to reallocate time from other commitments.

I believe in maintaining high standards in my work for the ARDC, and I want to be transparent that properly fulfilling both communications roles would require

  1. additional compensation that justifies deprioritizing my other commitments, or
  2. bringing in another person to share the workload.

While I’m confident in my ability to maintain quality communications either way, I believe option 3 would be most practical and efficient for the remaining term, with a compensation adjustment to reflect the increased responsibilities. Rather than simply doubling, perhaps 1.75x would be appropriate, acknowledging some efficiency gains from single-person coordination while still fairly compensating for the substantial increase in workload.

That said, I’m equally supportive of option 2 or 4 if the DAO prefers bringing in James or Pedro, and would gladly collaborate with any of them on a smooth transition. If we pursue this route, I’m happy to temporarily fill both roles with appropriate compensation during the transition period.

My priority remains ensuring the ARDC’s communications needs are effectively met during these final months of the term, and I’m committed to maintaining the quality standards the community expects regardless of which approach is chosen.

1 Like
3

We’d support option 4 (assuming interest and capacity from the other candidates). While we don’t doubt Juanrah’s ability to handle both roles, we think it’s better for the team in the long run when everyone has a healthy amount of bandwidth. However we also don’t want to see disruptions while another member is onboarded, so we think it’s worth making sure Juanrah is able to justify spending the extra time to cover here until things can get back to a normal state.

2 Likes
4

I would like to point my comment from yesterday ARDC Communication Thread - #24 by EzR3aL.

That would be option 4 in combination with option 2.
Just ask the next person in line in this case James if he is still interested.

KYC is done for both already through DIP. So that shouldn’t take a week.

1 Like
5

Thanks for putting this up, Tamara.

It’s good that we’re having this discussion now, and we appreciate Juanrah for providing more context around the current workload and time commitments.

Our recommendation is as follows:

  • First, the ARDC should reach out to jameskbh to confirm his availability.
  • If he’s unavailable, then pedrob should be approached.
  • If either of them is able to step in, we believe the hybrid option is the most effective — Juanrah continues to fill the role and is compensated until the new member is onboarded.

However, if neither jameskbh nor pedrob is available, then we suggest fully compensating Juanrah to continue in the role (Option 3).

Initiating a fresh election at this point would mean that a new replacement wouldn’t be onboarded until late May, leaving just about two months to contribute before the ARDC term ends. That doesn’t feel like an efficient or practical route given the time left.

This path prioritizes continuity and minimizes disruption while still respecting the original selection process.

1 Like
6

Thanks @tamara for the update and the thorough breakdown of the options being considered.

I want to confirm that I’m available and willing to take on the role, and I understand the responsibilities and expectations that come with it. I’m happy to proceed through any necessary steps, including the KYC process, and to coordinate with @Juanrah on timelines/workload to expedite the onboarding and ensure the DAO is best served.

Looking forward to hearing the final decision on this matter.

4 Likes
7

I am missing something. Why is @Juanrah specifically being proposed, instead of one of the other ARDC members?

In general, I would avoid going through a new election as that would require at least a month and it doesn’t seem worth it considering the mandate ends in July.

8

Thank you for sharing this dilemma with the community and involving us in the decision.

We believe that holding a new election in this case might not be the most practical option given the timing. However, if this situation was not anticipated in the original proposal, the most appropriate approach would be to put all the options you mentioned up for a vote, so the community can make the decision.

We’re not sure if that was the intent of this post, but we wanted to highlight it as we believe it’s the most correct path.

That said, we lean toward Option 4 as a temporary solution until Option 2 can be resolved.

9

Please refer to our website to get more context and the current Supervisory Council.

Feel free to also listen to any of our meeting recordings and check out this post.

If your question persists please let me know.

1 Like
10

Hi Tamara,

Thanks for kicking off the discussion.

The composition of this Supervisory Council, including its structure with three members, was introduced in ARDC v2. As such, it’s an ongoing experiment.

With that in mind, I’d agree that—since you’re already familiar with the demands of the role—you should feel empowered to decide unilaterally whether you can operate with one fewer member or if a new one needs to be brought in.

Regarding the ARB allocation, I’d also support the idea that, whether you bring someone new on board or not, the portion originally allocated to Tamara could be redistributed so that Juanra and the new member (@jameskbh ?) receive a compensation more in line with the original intent of the proposal.

In other words, the funding is already available, as two slots remain open (I understand @Entropy is waiving their payment), and in my view, you have both the experience and the ownership needed to determine how to move forward through the end of your term.

1 Like
11

in the mss we are moving toward a solution that seems scaling down toward the first non elected member to replace the signer which will take the seat of Frisson. TBD if this will effectively happen, we have meetings tomorrow and likely will chat internally more about it, but was the natural path in which we were all internally converging for simplicity and clarity.
In general we have very few proposals that specify what happens in case of termination/resignation of a member (I personally did put a clause in the D.A.O. grant program since is a 1y program, and might make sense to do it from now on, or standardise our behaviour). But logic would in general suggest to “keep going down the line” and onboard James, or whoever is eligible right below based on previous election results.

4 Likes