Thanks for the proposal. I think the changes are generally consistent with the changes we are seeing broadly in the DAO and DAO related councils, initiatives etc, specifically
- dropping amount of votes needed to do X
- increasing time in the role.
In particular
- the reduction from 0.2% to 0.1% seems to address the barrier of rising quorum. In favour
- term of 1y vs 6 months, allows for less operational burden in the DAO. In favour.
- auto pass of previous security council members: in general if they were elected they are likely still good enough for the council. In favour.
Would like to expand on last point, especially for answering @0xDonPepe and @jameskbh above.
While I do see a scenario in which you want to put checks and balances, it is quite likely that any incumbent going again for nominee would pass that phase.
But: passing that phase means, here, to get that 0.1% of total votable supply, that potentially can’t go to other candidates. To say in other terms, if we have a low turnaround of voting in security elections (or a rising quorum which gets us to the same result), allowing incumbent already vetted to not have to go through that again means increasing the chance to have fresh names for the actual election.
I do see, tho, a situation in which an old incumbent could not be deemed suitable anymore due to new reasons. But I guess there is still the ability, from the Arbitrum Foundation, to cut a name from the final phase of election like it happened a few elections ago for the vp of security / security officer (can’t remember the title sorry) of polygon, right? This should preserve us from the scenario in which an old incumbent has a free pass but is not suitable anymore for whatever reason written in the constitution.