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
Specifically, they’ve looked into the duration of the Security Council term and their conclusion was:
Therefore, I don’t agree with longer cohort durations.
I also want to highlight that the primary recommendation on Open Zeppelin’s report was:
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, I also don’t agree with “security council key rotation”.