# \[Constitutional\] AIP: Security Council Election Process Improvements \[OLD\]

**URL:** <https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-security-council-election-process-improvements-old/29848>\
**Category:** Finalized AIPs\
**Created:** [August 20, 2025, 2:54pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-security-council-election-process-improvements-old/29848 "2025-08-20T14:54:37Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 15

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![paulofonseca](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/forum.arbitrum.foundation/paulofonseca/32/15551_2.png) [@paulofonseca](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/u/paulofonseca)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2025, 5:28pm UTC](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-security-council-election-process-improvements-old/29848/15 "2025-08-26T17:28:33Z")

</div>

as I said in the call today, I would like to remind that we did pay @openzeppelin to conduct research into our security council, and to come up with a few recommendations. They’ve provided an output report that can be seen here: [Arbitrum Security Council Recommendations](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-security-council-recommendations/28850)

Specifically, they’ve looked into the duration of the Security Council term and their conclusion was:

> [@Arbitrum Security Council Recommendations](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-security-council-recommendations/28850/1):
>
> We recommend maintaining the current practice of terms of 12 months to prioritize operational continuity. With staggered elections where half the council is elected at a time, a reasonable schedule of two elections per year is achieved while maintaining consistency. The security-critical nature of the council benefits from the stability and efficiency that longer terms facilitate, even among already-qualified professionals, while staggered elections provide regular opportunities for community input.

Therefore, **I don’t agree with _longer cohort durations_.**

I also want to highlight that the **primary** recommendation on Open Zeppelin’s report was:

> [@Arbitrum Security Council Recommendations](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/arbitrum-security-council-recommendations/28850/1):
>
> The Security Council Election process is crucial to ensuring qualified candidates are elected to the Arbitrum Security Council. In particular, methods to surface candidate technical proficiency during the contender submission phase and assessment tasks to evaluate relevant technical skills during the compliance phase are recommended.

Therefore, and since this proposal doesn’t include anything of the sorts, **I don’t agree with “_adjusting the qualification thresholds”_ and neither with _“progress security council members”_.**

Also, regarding the _“security council key rotation”_, as I also said in the call, I think it opens a new attack vector and also delegitimizes the results of the nomination and election phases since delegates would be voting on security council members with specific keys and then those keys could change way more easily. And since we’ve had issues with past security council members keys, in exactly this issue, as can be seen [here](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/non-emergency-actions-to-facilitate-key-rotation-of-security-council-december-2024/27973/3), **I also don’t agree with _“security council key rotation”_**.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.arbitrum.foundation/t/constitutional-aip-security-council-election-process-improvements-old/29848)._