Extending the term seems reasonable. FranklinDAO would like to echo feedback from @cp0x on including the election calendar in the proposal and clarifying compensation for council members.
With regards to compensation transparency, it would be helpful to clarify whether “cost neutral” means that members would receive the same monthly comp for the extended term, which is cost-neutral in the sense that it’s equivalent to electing a potentially new set of council members; it does not mean that the annualized compensation would be spread out over the longer term to account for operating delays.
It would also be helpful to outline who are the sitting members of the council in the proposal to make it clear who’s getting their terms extended.
We support this proposal, as aligning the AGV Council term with the calendar year brings much-needed stability during its first full year of execution. We also align with community suggestions around improving the transition process, such as considering staggered terms in future cycles to retain institutional knowledge, and ensuring there’s a clear handover period before new members take over. At the same time, we believe this is a good moment to reflect on what’s been accomplished so far. Evaluating the Council’s progress can help shape a clearer long-term vision, allowing us to anticipate future needs and continue improving both governance and delivery. This proposal is a strong step forward, and these additions could make it even more effective.
I voteed FOR on Snapshot because this make things more easy for AGV Council to keep working without change people in busy time. The new election time is better and more clear. I think it’s good for everyone and help the work not stop
This proposal is quite straightforward as it ensures continuity for the AGV Council while aligning future elections with the DAO’s broader operational timeline.
This avoids unnecessary disruption, gives current members time to complete ongoing initiatives, and creates a more stable governance flow.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros DAO governance team, composed of Chain_L (@Blueweb) and @Euphoria, based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
We are voting FOR this proposal in the Snapshot voting.
Extending the AGV Council’s term through the end of 2025 makes sense, given this is the initiative’s first full year of execution. Aligning Council terms with the calendar year brings clarity, reduces mid-cycle disruption, and creates a predictable governance rhythm for the DAO to work with.
We also align with community suggestions shared by @Curia, @tamara, and others on improving the transition process and Council visibility. A December overlap period is a good start, and over time, lightweight midterm updates or reflections from the Council can help the DAO stay aligned and informed.
Voting for. I believe it’s important to ensure continuity and allow the process to run smoothly, without unnecessary slowdowns caused by the current calendar structure.
Like other delegates, I initially had concerns regarding the transition between mandates and the handover of tasks. However, the alternative solution proposed by @ArbitrumGaming seems to address this effectively
It make sense to keep the AGV going til the end of the year to sync with everything.
With that said, term extensions without public evaluation sets a weak precedent, there is a lot of comms going on behind the scenes but before the next cycle we need clear and regular reporting on what the council is delivering and where it can improve
Supporting this now for operational clarity but expect stronger public accountability mechanisms moving forward.
I’m not sure I’m fully for this in general, but I think there is a few operational realities here. 1) Startup was delayed, so there is a fair point to be made that the subsequent back-end of that is to be extended. 2) Elections at the beginning of the year feels like a cleaner approach all around. 3) This extension vote essentially acts as a reapproval vote for the current council anyway, and I’d imagine if there were delegates who had issues with current members it would not pass.
Voting “For” so as to give the AGV a better opportunity to achieve their goals.
Seconding the idea of a phased election to stagger any potential replacements as has been mentioned throughout the thread, that would have been a nice thing to see, to capture and pass along knowledge and other mind-state efficiently.
Also in the spirit of this, I do think a handover at any other time other than December would have been better. Getting a smooth handover during the same month that many major holidays and Quality-Time-With-Family-And-Travel events happen, all culminating with the giant party that is new years eve at the very end of the month, seems difficult at best. Any other month would have been a significant improvement in practice, even if it doesn’t perfectly align with the calendar year.
This proposal aligns well with our stance on maintaining operational efficiency at this critical stage.
We previously expressed concerns about operational disruptions and knowledge loss, and we appreciate that the revised proposal effectively incorporates those considerations. The proposed approach of overlapping council terms ensures smoother transitions and continuity without increasing unnecessary operational burdens.