by 0x895be97bdb9f8a244c472b18ea96dee39ddf8fe5 (dax)
Since 2023-07-07, the Revocation Committee has had 6 cases. In that time we’ve gathered enough information and experience to agree on some changes to improve how the revocation process works, the full text of which we will publish in the near future.
One of those ideas is to shrink the RC from 7 total member slots (5 active members and 2 substitutes) to 5 total member slots (3 active members and 2 substitutes).
We believe that having 7 total member slots is not necessary based on the workload that we have had and the processes we have already put into place. Furthermore, we anticipate that the workload going forward will be lighter than it was in the past months as there is no longer a backlog of cases to decide on.
Given the current workload and processes of the committee, why do you believe reducing the number of members from 7 to 5 (including 3 active members and 2 alternates) is appropriate? Furthermore, what factors lead you to predict a decrease in future workload? Will this decision inconvenience users in case of a sudden increase in traffic?
Hi @dax, only four people were enacted as part of the committee so the additional three were never replaced. I think the question should be, should the committee increase the total number from 3 active (Maryana, Dax, Metadoge) and 1 substitute (Bay) members to 5 total and that would need to be done via an open call.
In addition, the term specifies:
Art. 5 Duration
This Accountability Committee selected by the Decentraland DAO Community is expected to be in office for twelve (12) months and the members could be re-elected only for one consecutive period.
Based on when the 4 were enacted that initial term should come to an end in early May.
Does it make sense to reevaluate this at that time by requesting to add the additional member during the renewal period?
Whatever the decision, the committee did a great job in evaluating the cases in the fair manner in which they did. Adding one additional person makes sense to me as Bay has had to step in at least on one occasion.
Thanks,
Jenn
Agreed! Reduction in members definitely lacks transparency, so I also encourage the election of new members every 3-4 years. This would stimulate greater community involvement.
I think maybe you did not fully read my post We’ve had six cases so far and have made the processes from scratch. So while it was somewhat inefficient at first, it no longer is to such a degree. Furthermore, future cases are likely to be one at a time as we no longer have a backlog of cases as was the case when this committee started.
Even if we have multiple cases at once, we’ve already handled that with just 4 members.
In summary, 5 members will suffice in our opinion.
Will these members be replaced, and if so, how often? Or will replacements only occur when members voluntarily step down? Because I noticed that if this proposal passes, the remaining 5 members will be exactly the number of proposal slots available.
IMO the best people for this committee are those who can remain neutral and unbiased or recuse themself if they cannot. The background/experience should have no bearing at all.
We’ve had six cases so far and have made the processes from scratch. So while it was somewhat inefficient at first, it no longer is to such a degree. Furthermore, future cases are likely to be one at a time as we no longer have a backlog of cases as was the case when this committee started.