I have voted “For” this proposal, as I welcome any (reasonable) attempts to boost governance participation. I think through the discussions above EventHorizaonDAO has shown a willingness to be openminded to feedback and their changes to the initial proposal are appreciated. They also have a history with other projects, so there is some experience here that hopefully smaller delegates who participate in this have a positive experience with it.
Bi-annual reporting including KPIs such as voters, participation rate, voters above key threshold amounts (say $1k worth of ARB), etc. – 5k ARB
A suggestion here, since this is the snapshot phase. I personally think quarterly reports would be better, if not monthly. Maybe a hybrid where the monthly reporting gets out some basic metrics and progress updates, then the bi-annual is more comprehensive. I know this type of thing is balancing act between time / reader apathy, but bi-annual reporting feels a little too infrequent to me. Quarterly is probably the sweet-spot.
The Arbitrum Event Horizon Oversight Committee: A committee of 5 existing, notable delegates will be voted on by the Arbitrum community to be given the ability to guide the Event Horizon voting pool on matters of Arbitrum meta-governance. A simple 3/5 majority would allow this committee to veto the decisions of the voter pool within the 24 hours between the closing of the Event Horizon proposal, and the underlying DAO’s proposal.
Is there a delegate size limit to who can apply for this? I ask because, in theory, if the top 5 delegates by size were on this council they could collude to exert extra influence in any no decision. Not saying anyone would, but something to think about.
Edit: To save space, confirming my opinion has not changed since for the Tally vote. I’lld add, I think the switchover the MSS will be a good addition for this project!