Resetting the Community Council (CC)?

There is probably less risk of losing the fund becomming frozen with option 2) than with option 1). However, we need to trust a whole new set of people. That is basically the trade off.

We know the council now is barely functioning, but having new members does not guarantee to change that. However, we have seen commitment from these new candidates, e.g. yesterdays meeting both @waynegeorge and @transatoshi joined. That is a good sign! Although I appreciate the input from @trab and @Trinitron, both of them and even more the old CC members have been mostly absent from CC meetings.

Perhaps an option 3 which is a reset of the wallet but with some existing members. Perhaps the two or three most unreachable existing members could be changed for new ones.

2 Likes

@waynegeorge That is not a bad idea. As long as we have available signers and active refreshed CC, we have all the benefits with little new risk exposure.
Perhaps I can be one who holds a key for safety but who is less actively involved on a day to day basis. If there are sufficient new candidates I will step back a bit from governance and only join meetings for fun :smiling_face:.

@trab and @Trinitron. Can the both of you commit more to joining meetings? Even if there is no agenda, talking 1-2x a month on KeyBase is usefull to keep eachother updated and on track. Sure Keybase is not perfect but anyone can join it and keep relatively private. We do need commitment to join meetings at least monthly.

It may be a nice time to review the responsibilities of the CC role. Eg. meeting attendance, periodic key signing, funding requests, etc

1 Like

There could also be clear rules regarding non-engagement, like what happens if a person misses meetings or doesn’t respond to messages for a certain amount of time.

1 Like

I’d love to hear from the existing CC members about what they found difficult to help prevent repeating problems with any new members. We wouldn’t want anyone to feel burdened with the role and knowing what’s involved at the start should help prevent that feeling.

1 Like

I personally think the following should be expected:

CC council members

  • Join at least ones a month in the CC meeting
  • Respond in chat when being tagged
  • Check the forum weekly for important topics, respond to tags

CC keyholderd

  • Respond within a week in the chat when being tagged and asked to sign a transaction
  • Check forum biweekly and at least monthly to know roughly what is going on in the project
4 Likes

Consider: The less active the CC is, the less funding we waste.

It’s possible that my mindset on where Grin’s priorities should be better aligns with the OC rather than the CC. I’m willing to own that. I just think we should be putting everything into bare minimum functionality rather than spreading thin on side quests. I know everything is volunteer and we can’t make people do things though, so it is what it is.

Fruit comes from a healthy tree. I’m not sure the tree itself is healthy right now.

2 Likes

Recently, I’ve also been thinking about whether the Grin project should spend more to achieve a bigger technological breakthrough or a minimum maintenance operation.
Personally, I tend to save money on the treasury and maintain the minimum operation,After all, it’s a decades-long project.
However, the financial support that has been pledged needs to be implemented.Commitments should be kept

I don’t agree with that.
Homogenization is not a good thing, it is better to diversify.I’m not quite clear about the difference and role between OC and CC,Good governance requires checks and balances

1 Like

I am thinking as option 1 is better, as some of these members are valuable, and replace people that are not available.

I don’t understand why the forum can’t be a meeting place, here it would have a much broader audience, which is crucially necessary.

2 Likes

I think there is a misconception here, by you and I think roughly the whole community. The old CC member want out, if possible I would also step out or reduce activity but I cannot do so without the CC becoming effectively dead. Out of the 6 of us, perhaps we can retain 3 old key-holders, but there is no willingness or ability to continue as is. Let me give a more confronting but truthful depiction of the current situation:

Current CC key holders and representatives (4/6 MultiSig)

  1. @Paouky → :zombie: @Mokhtar :key: → :face_with_bags_under_eyes: @Cobragrin (representative)
    Fed up, working unpaid since start 2025
  2. :skull: @davidtavarez :key: → :zombie: @trab (representative)
    Is the key even available for emergency signing…?, representative not joined any meetings in 6 months
  3. :zombie: *@mcm-mike :key: → :skull: @renzokuken (representative)
    :zombie: Has not joined meetings in a year, key available for signing
  4. :skull: Mac/@Neo :key:
    Cannot continue as is, does not have the time. Perhaps can stay as key-holder, but at least needs a representative
  5. :face_with_bags_under_eyes: @Anynomous :key:
    I want to reduce Governance activity or step back completely, only key-holder
  6. :skull: @hendi :key: → :zombie: @Trinitron (representative) -
    representative not joined any meetings in past 12 months, @hendi indicated more than year ago he does not want to be key holder

In summary, only 4 out of 6 keys are actively available (this is the minimum for 4/6), activity wise the CC does not function at the moment and purely depends on me and @Cobragrin being there.
If we want to keep as much as possible key old key-holders as suggested by @waynegeorge and supported by others, I would suggested 1) @Anynomous 2) @Neo 3) @mcm-mike will be key-holders of the new multisig, +3 new key holders. Regarding @Cobragrin, either pay him as ground keeper in which case he can also be a CC member and key holder or count him out. There is is blatant underestimation of how much time all the ā€œlittleā€ administration things take. Personally I do not want to spend a single minute anymore on administration, but if other have the time and willingness to do it for free, go ahead.

It cannot properly handle the number of messages for a regular meeting, it is not designed for instant messaging so it is simply not the best choice. What is so hard about installing KeyBase, I just do not get why this is so often seen as a large obstacle? Perhaps we do not need every forum member to join meetings, but a few more would be nice.

1 Like

The CC has similar but slightly different objective then the OC. I do not think we need to be a carbon copy, and our objectives are already very much aligned. If we would alight 100%, why not join both councils…

I think there is a second misconception, that is that when me or @Cobragrin talk about a function CC that we mean a CC that actively pushes development and spends funds. That is not what makes a governance council functioning. Function governance is procedural, meaning people show up on meetings, people respond to being tagged, people absolutely respond when being tagged or private messaged in CC channels. Members keep up with what is going on. That is currently not the situation. Sure that does not mean we need everyone to show up at biweekly meetings, but we are now talking about not joining meetings in 6-12 months, not being up to date on what is being worked on, not being aligned with one another. These meetings are there to make sure we are aligned and up to date on what we all do and want, even if that often does not directly lead to action or spending.

To go back to your analogy, a farmer might not go out every day to trim his tree, pick its apples or fight pests. But a good farmer consistently wakes up in time to visit his tree, inspect it, and see if it is growing healthy. The CC is the farmer, the project is the tree, we need consistent love and attention in taking care of that tree.

3 Likes

If you can’t find an answer, change it.

We better ā€œadaptā€ to low frequency messaging here on the forum, but with the incredible luxury that everybody has access to the meeting.

1 Like

Getting the CC off of Keybase is important.

Or everyone could just use the SimpleX grinchat.mw server where those who want can protect their privacy and join anonymously with no accounts.

I’ve heard so much bitching about Keybase and worked to make a replacement, but I can’t force people over.

5 Likes

I think it’s a great idea for new members to bring in a breath of fresh air.
Nice that you received my Telegram message and remembered my request for the CC back then.

I would like to become a member and deepen my work in GRIN.

I’m very rarely on Keybase, I mostly communicate via Telegram or in the forum.

5 Likes

This could be an opportunity to create a new system for future development and stand out in the crypto world. There could be people out there with ideas or people yet to come who scan the forum and get put off by the current organisation. I’m totally against fund waste but I’m all for growth where possible. I think that it’s worth a try.

There are many things that can be done from a core development perspective but I understand that the OC gave funds to the CC to be used for supporting projects. As long as there is a good process in place, I think that it should continue. We could create some rules around what is an acceptable proposal and create a template for requests, so a person completes a form essentially, the council check some tick boxes, and if all in place, give the go ahead. As long as criteria are met, payment is made. There would need to be a way to deal with ambiguity but if thought out well enough, we could manage it.

Regarding keyholders vs representatives, I don’t think it works well to separate the two. I suggest 6 council members, all with keys, all with a voice. Perhaps it can be a six-month commitment that gets reviewed and gives a person a way to step back if they want. Of course, it’d be dependent on there being some replacements ready but we could see then.

Here’s what I suggest to do now. We currently have 5 of six key holders contactable. What if a new wallet was created for six council members but only a small portion of the fund is sent to it. If management and engagement goes well, the rest can be transferred at later dates. The existing key holders would need to agree to that as there would need to be a few signings.

7 Likes

I would go with option 2, with the mix of old and new CC members. And perhaps lowered multisig threshold, 4/6 → 3/6.

It would be great if new CC could be more pro-active, but just being available to sign a transaction is good enough for me as well.

4 Likes

There were previously candidacy posts made when electing CC members so here is mine:

Transatoshi candidacy post for the GrinCC

Why I love Grin

The best part of Grin is the open mindedness and tact the community carries itself with. Joining the Grin forums was the first time I was welcomed for the things I can contribute to the project and not judged for who I am. I have many pals in the community including those I disagree with ideologically, but there is still a mutual respect between us - let bygones be bygones. That’s something I couldn’t find anywhere else in the crypto space.

About me

I am a medically retired sysadmin from the USA who has been involved with mining Grin since October 2023. I live with my 2 cats in basically a mini-home data center where I host all the services on https://grinminer.net using multiple racks of servers and enterprise network equipment. I am expressing my desire to be a member of the Grin Community Council because I believe I can be highly available and active with it as I don’t have a job or school to focus on.

My stance on Grin

I am less concerned about the price of Grin, and more worried about how stagnant it is. I want to help the community in picking up the slack we have since YeastPlume is no longer a full time developer. I respect his longtime work and dedication, and think it’s great that he will still be around to pitch in to maintain Grin, but we are >6 months since the last grin server build that is still in alpha stage. I am unfortunately not a programmer by trade, but I am currently learning JS and Rust so I can help in picking some low hanging fruit to work on and contribute in any way I can.

What I see in the future for Grin

I feel like I would be a fool to predict what will happen to Grin in the future. Once inflation drops, I could see hash rising with new miner interest. Maybe a more few competent and generous Rustacean devs stumble in the door, or privacy becomes a mainstream concern for the public and adoption happens leading to the cream (Grin for small txs and payments, Monero for a store of value) rising out the privacy shitcoin crop.

Final Words

In an ideal world Grin would be the money transferred over the internet using HTTPS as it was implied to be an intended feature (see HTTP 402 – payment required).

Thank you for reading and please like the post if you feel I would be a good fit.

12 Likes