for a committee where new members were onboarded post start.
Thank you for sharing your perspectives. They may be some misunderstanding around this statement. The 2 new members have been part of the committee since before its formal ratification on-chain which was on the 30th of March (See execution of “CGP-169”). The working group communication channel, which included all 5 members, was created on the 26th of March. The first week’s score was published on the 13th (See Score Management Committee - Results for week ending 13/04/2025). This is also reflected in the proposal itself (See “Proposal description”).
A new vote to decide this composition…
An initial composition of the score management was a hard requirement on “Set The Great Celo Halvening Parameters” (See 9, Set RPC score commitee). Without a functioning ScoreManager multisig, the entire concept of Community RPC nodes would be compromised (Proposal: Validator Engagement During the Transition to Celo L2) as any elected community node would be free to collect rewards without actually running a node.
Having a 5 person committee ensures fair distribution of workload as some of us can either:
- Focus on creating standards for community RPC nodes
- Research innovative approaches to trustless up-time checking
- Develop and maintain both new and existing up-time checking software and infrastructure (Open source, released as public goods).
- Handle disputes
- Any other responsibility deemed necessary
Also, A 3/5 multisig config is better than a 2/3 from a security perspective. It also adds operation flexibility and higher availability.
The actual individual composition of the committee consists of diverse long-time independent validators all of whom have a strong technical background in RPC node operations; a qualification deemed necessary for committee participation (Credentials are verifiable). Also it is worth noting that most, if not all, DAOs and communities on Celo have been formed voluntarily. An open call was also made for anyone interested to join this committee in the “Set The Great Celo Halvening Parameters” forum post.
and budget would be more appropriate in our opinions.
Fiscal responsibility and community oversight is important and we welcome ongoing scrutiny and transparency. That said, the committee itself has a 6 month runway. We are in the 2nd month of operation. The original budget was set, and transferred with the execution of CGP-169. The new budget is proportional to the original request (where it was deemed fair for the potential amount of work involved) and demonstrating impact require both time and coordination especially for a first time, novel initiative. It would be fair to retroactively re-evaluate the committee composition and budget at the end of the 6 months after assessing its impact.