tl;dr:
-
The nomination period for Council seats is scheduled to end in 3 days, and we only have 4 nominees so far
-
Threshold would benefit from the community taking a step back for additional discussion before concluding the Council nomination period and moving to a Snapshot vote
-
We offer several options for this, including inviting Council members to extend their term by 3 months
Ashley (MrsNuBooty) and I joined the Integrations Guild weekly call today, and the attendees ended up having a very candid and beneficial discussion regarding the Threshold Council elections (see blitmore’s helpful summary above of Derek’s excellent report from August). Two members of the current Council were on the call and they shared some perspectives on how the role of the Council has evolved over the last 11 months.
Several concerns were discussed:
-
The nomination period for Council seats is scheduled to end in 3 days, and we only have 4 nominees (last year there were 18 before the vote)
-
The community is not aware of which Council members are interested in continuing for another term
-
This Friday’s Community call (3pm EST in Discord) will include a “meet & greet”, but attendance has been low for recent calls and participation isn’t guaranteed
-
We’ve experienced an enormous amount of change in the past year, and many challenges loom
Additionally, we believe these 3 points from the original post are material to our ability to both nominate candidates, as well as to vote on the final member list:
-
“There will be more information shared about the final responsibilities attributed to the Threshold Council”
-
“The Threshold Council has the interim responsibility of managing Protocol Owned Liquidity, until proper mechanisms are set in place to manage this directly via the DAO.”
-
“Compensation will be revised for this second epoch, in accordance with the anticipated responsibilities and workload.”
Accordingly, we highly recommend that the Threshold community take a step back and have additional discussion before concluding the Council nomination period and moving to a Snapshot vote (currently scheduled to begin on Monday).
We offer to write a proposal (to be moved to Snapshot) based on the consensus we hope to build on a modified approach. Suggestions include:
-
Delay the Snapshot vote, allowing more time for the Community to understand everything it needs to and better vet what should be a larger candidate pool. A challenge with this is the approaching holidays impacting bandwidth for vote and transition period by Jan. 1st.
-
Extend the term of the current Council by 1-3 months. A challenge here will likely include the need for one or more Council members to conclude their service in December owing to other commitments and/or personal reasons.
-
Invite Council members who are willing and able to extend their term by 3 months (or a different period) to do so, resulting in an election in December for fewer than the full 9 seats. This could also be prudent in terms of extending the time for a thorough handoff to and onboarding of new members - and the DAO recently staggered the guild committee terms to increase continuity.
We also note that with the Snapshot passing yesterday authorizing 15,000 DAI to engage a law firm “for conducting a review and providing guidance to the DAO on an optimal legal structure to protect DAO contributors” (a proposal we both strongly supported) there may be current and prospective Council members whose willingness to serve will increase once that proposed structure is outlined.
We are inclined toward the 3rd option, but most importantly we want to engage the community in a discussion that allows us to align on the best path forward (even if that ends up being no change to the process underway but more clarity on the roles and more nominations). To that end, tagging @Eastban @jakelynch @derek @Naxsun @EvandroSaturnino @ben @michwill @stefanobernardi @fjarri @maclane for your thoughts.
Thank you,
John & Ash