AIP - 6 : Security Council Elections

What is this about?

The discussion revolves around the upcoming Security Council elections for the Arbitrum DAO, with six members set to be replaced every six months. The election process is divided into several stages: Endorsement of candidates, Compliance check by the Foundation, and Member election. The voting system is implemented through a smart contract system that has undergone multiple security audits. The code for the proposed architecture is available for review on GitHub¹. The discussion also includes proposed changes to the Arbitrum Constitution by Arbitrum ¹, which include a new timeline for the election process, the authority for the Arbitrum Foundation to add new nominees, and the removal of the phrase 'immediately join the Council' to account for the on-chain governance process¹. The proposal is now up for a vote on-chain²^,³^,⁸^,⁹^,¹⁵.

How is the community reacting?

The community is actively discussing the election process, focusing on the stages of the election, the nominee selection process, and the functionality of the Security Council manager. The community is also discussing the changes required to the Constitution’s text to account for the time it takes to install new candidates and to support compliance procedures set out by the Arbitrum Foundation¹. The community is largely supportive of the proposal, with MattOnChain, Frisson, GFXlabs, Dzack23, Stonecoldpat, Fred, Goodo, 0xdilara, and Limes all expressing their support and appreciation for the efforts put into the Arbitrum governance²^,³^,⁴^,⁵^,⁸^,⁹^,¹⁰^,¹²^,¹⁴^,¹⁶. ModalQuant has suggested the possibility of a 'Technical Council' to manage smart contract risks and market risks¹⁷.

Why this is positive?

The implementation of the Security Council elections through a smart contract system is a positive step towards decentralization and transparency. The system has undergone multiple security audits, ensuring its safety and reliability. The detailed explanation of the election process and the functionality of the Security Council manager provided by Arbitrum ¹ is also beneficial for the community's understanding and participation in the elections. The proposed changes could lead to a more structured and transparent election process. The inclusion of a Compliance process and the ability for the Arbitrum Foundation to update its compliance policy for each election could ensure that all candidates meet the necessary requirements¹. The detailed timeline and process for the election could also provide clarity and predictability for the community¹. The proposed framework for rotating the Security Council is seen as a positive step towards ensuring confidence in security guarantees for new contracts. The community appreciates the transparency and the efforts put into the Arbitrum governance. The implementation of an end-to-end Election process by Tally is also seen as a positive development²^,³^,⁸^,⁹^,¹⁰^,¹²^,¹⁴^,¹⁶.

Why this is negative?

The complexity of the election process and the functionality of the Security Council manager might be challenging for some community members to understand. The requirement for minor changes to the Constitution’s text might also be seen as a negative aspect, as it could lead to potential misunderstandings or disagreements within the community¹. The proposed changes could extend the election duration, potentially causing delays in decision-making and implementation of changes¹. The authority given to the Arbitrum Foundation to add new nominees could also be seen as centralizing power, which may not be well-received by some community members¹. Goodo suggests that if someone has transferred votes to a delegate, it may be worth considering returning to your own voting¹². This could imply potential issues with the delegation of votes.

x23.ai