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.
@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 .
@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.
There could also be clear rules regarding non-engagement, like what happens if a person misses meetings or doesnāt respond to messages for a certain amount of time.
Iād love to hear from the existing CC members about what they found difficult to help prevent repeating problems with any new members. We wouldnāt want anyone to feel burdened with the role and knowing whatās involved at the start should help prevent that feeling.
Consider: The less active the CC is, the less funding we waste.
Itās possible that my mindset on where Grinās priorities should be better aligns with the OC rather than the CC. Iām 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 canāt make people do things though, so it is what it is.
Fruit comes from a healthy tree. Iām not sure the tree itself is healthy right now.
Recently, Iāve 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 operationļ¼After all, itās a decades-long project.
However, the financial support that has been pledged needs to be implemented.Commitments should be kept
I donāt agree with that.
Homogenization is not a good thing, it is better to diversify.Iām not quite clear about the difference and role between OC and CC,Good governance requires checks and balances
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)
@davidtavarez ā @trab (representative) Is the key even available for emergency signingā¦?, representative not joined any meetings in 6 months
*@mcm-mike ā @renzokuken (representative) Has not joined meetings in a year, key available for signing
Mac/@Neo Cannot continue as is, does not have the time. Perhaps can stay as key-holder, but at least needs a representative
@Anynomous I want to reduce Governance activity or step back completely, only key-holder
@hendi ā @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 ālittleā 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.
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 councilsā¦
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.
.
ā 
