I have voted as follows:
- Against the longer cohort durations. While I appreciate thinking of voter / canidate fatigue, I agree with @paulofonseca that if we paid openzeppelin to do a study on this we should factor in their opinions. As they are an expert in this field. Plus, this seems purely for just making things easier for voters / candidates and not really for security reasons. Realistically, voting twice a year isn’t that big of an ask, especially now that voting activity has decreased overall. And campaigning is still only a yearly thing.
- I am fine with adjusting the qualification threshold as realistically DAO activity will decrease over time making it harder to reach threshold. So voting for that. Plus if the goal of the qualification is just to check competence, the real limiter should just be the yes/no of the DAO. If we limit too much, were essentially having a mini election before the real election which seems redundant
- However, I disagree with automatically progressing secuirty council members. The vetting process is important, and while presumably a member whose already on the council has met this threshold, I’d prefer in the interest of security to maintain that.
- Security Key Rotation - Yes to members, no to candidates. I essentially agree exactly with @Griff. For the multisig of elected members it’s needed as members may lose access to keys. If they are vetted, elected and in the council the negative security aspects of a lost key far outweigh any minuscule security improvement by not allowing it to be rotated. For candidates, the voting process is relatively short and feels unnecessary to allow key rotation at that stage. Plus, I think there is the very practical answer here - if a candidate really needed to change their keys, they can just do so once they are a member.