Given our experience in governance, our relationship with Arbitrum, and our previous application to the Security Council, we see these changes as a good step to reduce operational overhead by introducing longer terms, encourage participation, and strengthen security (Key Rotation just for members).
On one hand, we don’t see a major issue with having only a few candidates, since most bring strong alignment with Arbitrum and the skills needed for the role. Furthermore, the clarifications shared here should help drive broader participation.
On the other hand, based on our experience, we see two main factors that discourage candidates from stepping forward:
- Reaching quorum. Lowering the threshold and allowing Security Council members to bypass the Nominee stage can help redistribute votes. The bypass should ideally include a filter, and if the process ever becomes too easy, it can be adjusted. In practice, the member election process already serves as a final filter.
- Running a campaign. Applying, presenting yourself, and showing alignment with Arbitrum voters is demanding and time-consuming, especially for external participants. Extending the time between elections might help motivate more candidates to step forward.
Thanks for bringing this discussion forward and for the dedication on all sides to reach the best possible solution.