We think both members have done a pretty good job and there’s not a strong case to no reconfirm them I think.
Tim Chang’s connections in the gaming and venture capital industries offer strategic benefits, enabling the GCP to build partnerships, attract investment, and foster a thriving ecosystem. John Kennedy’s background as the former Head of Product at AWS GameTech equips him with deep knowledge of the gaming infrastructure and his vc experience adds on.
Some questions regarding operations and things to consider:
While both nominees bring strong credentials, it’s important that the council maintains transparency in its decision-making processes, especially around project selection and fund allocation. How will Tim and John ensure that their decisions reflect the broader community’s interests and are communicated clearly to stakeholders? This has been pretty poor so far we think, or we’re not looking at the right places?
Are there specific goals or milestones they believe are critical for demonstrating the GCP’s value to the DAO?
The proposal notes that the council may continue with a board of three, four, or five members based on the reconfirmation results. What’s the reasoning here behind each numner?
Given the emphasis on maintaining integrity and transparency, it’s essential to understand how potential conflicts of interest will be managed. Are there any current or past relationships that could present conflicts for Tim or John; or more so, how do they plan to address them? Basically, how will the council balance its role in supporting ecosystem growth while avoiding favoritism or undue influence over specific projects or stakeholders?
We are voting to reconfirm both Tim Chang and John Kennedy. Their experience is valuable, and after reviewing their backgrounds, we have no concerns.
Tim’s extensive experience in venture capital, Web3, and tech, along with his track record of successful investments, has been crucial for GCP’s growth. John has quickly integrated into the Council, bringing fresh ideas and commitment.
I don’t quite understand the principle of this vote. We already had a vote of members of this council.
Why does a person who received only 1% of the votes and took 9th place in this vote become a temporary member and we vote for his approval?
Where are all the other people we can choose from?
Thanks for highlighting Tim and John expertise and experiences, I have no problem with them staying in this role. Voted for Reconfirm Tim Chang and John Kennedy to GCPC.
I voted to reconfirm both. As others pointed out, it would be nice to have a summary of what the council worked on so far (as some members started on Jun 21st.)
The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting FOR the reconfirmation of both Tim and John for the GCP Council.
After seeing them in action, we’re comfortable with their ability to contribute materially and impactfully to the GCP. Specifically, we’ve seen Tim step up and take the initiative in the early days of the council to help push it forward. As for John, apart from his experience working with Amazon, we’ve also seen him in action during GovHack, and we appreciate his communication and management skills.
voting Don’t confirm Tim Chang to GCPC on the current offchain proposal because to my knowledge, Tim has not contributed to Arbitrum DAO before and I believe the GCP should have selected someone with more context about our DAO.
voting Reconfirm John Kennedy to GCPC on the current offchain proposal because John has enough context about Arbitrum DAO and gaming to be effective in this new role.
I am voting to reconfirm both Tim Chang and John Kennedy to the GCP council. They have shown strong performance in their roles, and their backgrounds are a perfect match for driving the council’s success
I read both Tim Chang and John Kennedy’s bios, and I’m sure that their backgrounds and experience show how they can hold this position providing good quality. This is why I’m voting to reconfirm both of them.
After reviewing their introductions during the recent governance call, reading their professional backgrounds, and considering their contributions highlighted by the community, we support reconfirming both Tim Chang and John Kennedy to the GCP council. Their profiles align well with the council’s needs.
Having had the privilege of engaging with both Tim and John as a member of the GCP Council, i vote to reconfirm both as they have shown exceptional skill in their respective domains, and also the type of broad experience that is necessary for the program at this initial stage.
The following reflects the views of the Lampros Labs DAO governance team, composed of @Blueweb, @Euphoria, and Hirangi Pandya (@Nyx), based on our combined research, analysis, and ideation.
During the Bi-weekly Call, we heard from John and Tim and learned how they are aligning with the council. We believe their insights, provided in the context of the council, offer more depth than a general understanding. Both candidates have impressive backgrounds, and we are confident they can lead Arbitrum toward success in the gaming ecosystem.
Voting for both John and Tim. Very happy to see John moving into this role, and I agree with others that having Tim for continuity is important. Hopefully this gets the GCP back on track.
After consideration, the @SEEDgov delegation has decided to vote “Reconfirm Tim Chang and John Kennedy to GCPC” on this proposal at the Snapshot Vote / Snapshot Vote 2.
Rationale
We have closely followed the discussions surrounding the Gaming Catalyst Program (GCP) and would like to take this opportunity to stress the importance of allowing the GCP the necessary time and tools to function before making any further decisions about its future.
The GCP was one of the most significant proposals to come from Arbitrum’s governance in 2024. It underwent extensive debate, calls, and scrutiny by the DAO, which ultimately determined that the GCP represents a collaborative effort from a diverse group of ecosystem participants, resulting in a project with a collective ethos greater than any single actor involved.
That said, we believe that an initiative with such a sizable budget should naturally be subject to ongoing DAO scrutiny and, in due course, present detailed accountability reports.
Lastly, we understand how crucial it is that this initiative does not go leaderless. Regarding the two candidates, we align with the other delegates in recognizing the qualifications of both to join the Council, and we have no objection to giving them the opportunity to serve.