Co-Created Screening Committee Charter v0.2.0: Discussion and Draft for Community Review

House of Stake Hack Humanity
, ,
1

Co-Created Screening Committee Charter v0.2.0: Discussion and Draft for Community Review

This post summarizes the key governance design questions that emerged from the review and feedback on the Interim Screening Committee Charter (v0.1.0).

It also includes the core deliverables of a V0.2.0 draft and a feedback report (as a reply post).

Introduction: Rethinking the Screening Committee

The changes needed to evolve the Screening Committee go far beyond simple edits. This post raises the key structural and cultural design questions we need to align on before finalizing a community-ratified charter.

The goal here isn’t to review the draft line by line, but to surface shared understanding around the governance design principles that define how authority, accountability, and participation should function in the House of Stake.

An updated draft charter is included only to illustrate assumptions and provide context, not as the main item for critique. The draft exists to help us discuss the big design choices that will guide the next version.

How to Participate in Co-Creation

  1. Review the Discussion Topics (shared in the post below) and share your reflections or alternative models.
  2. Focus on structure, legitimacy, and accountability, not wordsmithing. Your insights will guide the next constitutional iteration.

Deliverable

Screening Committee Charter v0.2.0

Screening Committee Charter

Version: v0.2.0 (Community Co-Created Draft)
Status: For Community Review & Open Feedback
Supersedes: Interim Screening Committee Charter v0.1.0

Introduction

:ballot_box_with_ballot: Purpose of this Charter

The NEAR House of Stake Screening Committee Charter defines the mandate, authority, structure, and accountability of the Screening Committee — a governance body responsible for routing, evaluating, and enabling proposals and delegates within the House of Stake (HoS).

This version replaces the Interim Charter and establishes a professional, full-time, community-owned system emphasizing transparency, role clarity, and purpose-fit governance.

The Committee’s mission is to:

  • Ensure that decision processes are legitimate, transparent, and fair;
  • Steward proposals toward the proper decision-making mechanisms (“routing” rather than “filtering”);
  • Maintain high standards of alignment with the Constitution, Mission-Vision-Values (MVV), and subordinate charters; and
  • Build an accountable bridge between human deliberation and on-chain governance.

Article 1 — Purpose

1.1 The Screening Committee exists to uphold integrity, neutrality, and continuous improvement within the House of Stake.
1.2 It routes proposals to the appropriate decision body or mechanism based on technical, social, and economic considerations.
1.3 It operates as a full-time, NEAR-exclusive body, ensuring independence from external interests.
1.4 It ensures all reviews, deliberations, and dissenting opinions are transparently recorded and publicly accessible.
1.5 It serves as a model and humans-in-the-loop for the transition toward AI-assisted, on-chain, and participatory governance.

Article 2 — Authority

2.1 Proposal Routing and Evaluation

  • All submitted proposals are reviewed for completeness within seven (7) calendar days of final submission.
  • The Committee routes proposals to the correct governance channel based on criteria such as:
    • Technical feasibility
    • Stakeholder alignment
    • Compliance and risk management
    • Impact analysis (financial, governance, and social)
    • Mission-Vision-Values alignment

2.2 Decision Process and Transparency

  • Decisions are made by consensus or majority vote and must be publicly recorded.
  • Phase 1: decisions logged on the governance forum.
  • Phase 2: discovery of AI and on-chain tooling to improve automation and verification.
  • Phase 3: all decisions and justifications executed and stored on-chain.

2.3 AI-Assisted Evaluation

  • The Committee uses AI tools to apply transparent rubrics that score proposals against published alignment criteria.
  • Human members retain authority to justify and override AI assessments with documented reasoning.

2.4 Delegate Oversight

  • The Committee reviews endorsed delegates monthly for performance, participation, and transparency.
  • Reviews are logged publicly and tied to incentive or compensation tiers.

2.5 Enforcement of Transparency

  • Transparency reports are due monthly.
  • Failure to publish within thirty (30) days triggers an Ombudsman review led by the Head of Governance, who may issue findings or corrective actions.
  • Any DAO participant may request such a review.

2.6 Ombudsman Oversight

  • The Head of Governance serves as the Ombudsman; external to the Committee and responsible for oversight and accountability reviews.
  • The Ombudsman may receive complaints about the Committee or individual delegates.
  • Conversely, the Committee or DAO Advocate may raise issues concerning the Ombudsman through community process.

Article 3 — Membership

3.1 Composition

  • The Committee consists of five (5) members, serving full-time and exclusive to NEAR.
  • Roles include:
    1. Chair — convenes meetings, ensures postings and reporting, and maintains operational flow.
    2. DAO Advocate / Transparency Officer — ensures openness, communicates with the community, and conducts due-diligence tasks.
      3-5. Domain Stewards — full-time roles aligned to major governance domains (Social, Economic, Technical) or quarterly outcome goals ratified by the community.

3.2 Qualifications

Members are selected based on expertise, commitment, and alignment with HoS values, not popularity.
Conflicts of interest must be disclosed and managed per the Code of Conduct.

3.3 Selection and Transition

The selection follows a phased transition model:

  1. Co-Creation Phase — community ratifies this charter and defines selection criteria.
  2. Trial Phase (3–6 months) — operate a pilot committee with minimal cost and evaluate processes.
  3. Full Implementation Phase — launch funded, full-time committee using outcomes of the trial.

The Head of Governance (Ombudsman) oversees each phase to ensure procedural legitimacy.

3.4 Rotation and Continuity

  • Members serve staggered terms;
  • Chair has no term limit to maintain consistency, but an election to replace can be triggered by Head of Governance.
  • Stewards have a 1 year term and a 3 year term limit to ensure long-term context can develop, but not entrench interests.
  • DAO Advocate is a 1 year term and a 3 year term limit

Article 4 — Responsibilities

4.1 Proposal Review and Routing

  • Evaluate final proposals within seven days.
  • Publish reasoning and decision pathways to the forum and, later, on-chain.
  • Route proposals to the correct governance workstream or domain steward for action.

4.2 Delegate Oversight

  • Conduct monthly reviews of endorsed delegates.
  • Assess transparency, activity, and compliance with MVV and Code of Conduct.
  • Recommend adjustments to compensation or delegation based on review outcomes.

4.3 Reporting

  • Publish monthly transparency and activity reports summarizing all decisions, reviews, and dissenting opinions.
  • Maintain open data repositories for decision logs and AI scoring outputs.

4.4 Meetings

  • Hold regular public meetings (minimum biweekly).
  • Record attendance, votes, and rationale for all decisions.
  • Post minutes to the forum and archive on-chain when available.

Article 5 — Accountability & Oversight

5.1 Transparency
All meetings, votes, and decisions must be documented and publicly accessible within seven (7) days.

5.2 Appeals
Any decision of the Committee may be appealed through a appeals process (TBD).

5.3 Oversight Relationships

  • The Ombudsman (Head of Governance) monitors compliance and can trigger reviews.
  • The DAO Advocate ensures two-way communication between the Committee and the community.
  • Delegates and community members may petition for investigation of non-compliance.

5.4 Code of Conduct
The House of Stake Code of Conduct applies to all members and defines standards of transparency, respect, and accountability.

Article 6 — Transition and Succession

6.1 Phased Implementation
The transition follows three defined phases as detailed in Article 3.3.
The community will ratify progression between phases through governance votes including:

  • Ratification of the cocreated charter
  • Passing a budget to fund a full time and exclusive committee and any development costs for onchain and AI tooling.

6.2 Succession

  • 6.2.1. At the end of the cocreation phase, the Ombudsman coordinates the elections and appointments of the first Chair & DAO Advocate.
  • 6.2.2. At the end of the trial phase, the Ombudsman coordinates the selection of three DAO stewards by:
    • 6.2.2.1. A two week nomination phase for community nominations and self nomination.
    • 6.2.2.2. The Head of Governance OR Screening Committee approve candidates that are qualified.
    • 6.2.2.3. A binding vote for each role is held to decide from the qualifying candidates.
    • 6.2.2.4. An onboarding trial of 3 months where the Head of Governance backed by any single screening committee member can initiate a replacement election for non-performance.

6.3 Continuity Safeguards
If the transition fails to complete by the specified date, the prior committee retains authority under Ombudsman supervision until replacement is confirmed.

Article 7 — Participatory and Efficient Governance

7.1 Delegated Authority
The Committee operates under delegated authority for rapid, purpose-fit decision-making, balanced by transparency and oversight.

7.2 Open Deliberation
Open deliberation is required for structural or meta-governance changes within the Committee, or when specified by the Constitution.

7.3 Efficiency Principle
Processes should continuously optimize for speed and pragmatism while maintaining accountability.

Article 8 — AI and Technological Integration

8.1 The Committee promotes responsible AI integration across governance processes.
8.2 AI tools must operate on transparent, explainable rubrics, with all underlying models and criteria open for community inspection.
8.3 Humans remain accountable for final decisions but may delegate routine scoring or classification to AI systems.
8.4 Over time, the Committee will design and propose the migration of evaluative and decision functions to autonomous on-chain systems.

Article 9 — Interpretation and Disputes

9.1 Internal Disputes
Conflicts involving Committee members or decisions are referred to the Head of Governance (Ombudsman) for impartial review.

9.2 External Disputes
All other disputes are governed by the NEAR House of Stake Constitution (Article 11).

Article 10 — Effectiveness and Review

10.1 This Charter becomes effective upon community ratification.
10.2 It will undergo a formal review after six (6) months of operation, and annually thereafter.
10.3 Amendments require community proposal and ratified vote.

Authorship & Acknowledgements

Drafted by:
Community Co-Creation Process
Primary Drafter: Disruption Joe
Facilitator: Hack Humanity

Based on:
Feedback and deliberations from the Interim Charter review and community workshops, incorporating input from NEAR Foundation, Gauntlet, Agora, and the House of Stake community.

Special shout out to Dacha for HSP-010 insights.

Guiding Principles

  • Transparency is non-negotiable.
  • Participation must be purpose-fit.
  • Expertise and accountability are prerequisites for authority.
  • AI and automation are tools for equity and efficiency, not replacements for human judgment.
  • Decentralization succeeds through trust, clarity, and professionalism.

13 Discussion Topics

Below, you’ll find 13 deeper discussion questions that guide how this new model could operate in practice.
Each question includes a summary of my suggested direction in callouts, which informed the drafting of the new charter - which will definitely change after this discussion!

Please focus your comments and suggestions on these higher-level governance themes — not on specific words or sections of the charter text. The purpose of this phase is to determine alignment and comfort with the direction of change before we finalize a ratified version.

:large_orange_diamond: 1. Time Commitment & Exclusivity Requirements

:speech_balloon: Discussion Question: Should members of the Screening Committee be expected to serve in a part-time vs. full-time capacity, and should their work be exclusive to the NEAR ecosystem?

Change magnitude: High
Impact on governance: Very High
Pros: Would ensure a more engaged, accountable, and timely committee capable of managing monthly reviews and transparency obligations.
Cons: Could reduce accessibility and diversity by favoring full-time or well-funded participants.

Hack Humanity Suggestion
The community may wish to explore a transition toward a full-time, NEAR-exclusive Screening Committee, where members dedicate meaningful bandwidth to transparency, coordination, and iterative improvement.
While AI-supported or part-time models could emerge as well, setting the intetion to have full-time stewardship could help build the discipline and momentum required to actively align changes.

:large_orange_diamond: 2. Defined Roles and Accountability (Chair, Transparency Officer, Liaison)

:speech_balloon: Discussion Question: Should the future charter define specific officer roles (e.g., Chair, Transparency Officer) within the committee to ensure accountability for communications and reports?

Change magnitude: High
Impact on governance: High
Pros: Creates clear responsibility for reporting, communications, and transparency outputs.
Cons: Adds hierarchy to what is currently a flat, structure.

Hack Humanity Suggestion
To strengthen clarity and follow-through, the Committee could formalize distinct officer roles — a Chair for coordination and reporting, a DAO Advocate / Transparency Officer for community communication, and three Domain Stewards for thematic or outcome alignment.
Such definition can prevent role diffusion while preserving collaborative flexibility.

:large_orange_diamond: 3. Transition & Succession Mechanism

:speech_balloon: Discussion Question: Should a clear succession and transition playbook be established detailing how authority shifts from the interim body to the community-led one?

Change magnitude: High
Impact on governance: High
Pros: Prevents power vacuums or legitimacy gaps during the transition from interim to community governance.
Cons: May complicate flexibility and increase procedural overhead.

Hack Humanity Suggestion
Rather than a one-step election, a phased transition model could balance stability and legitimacy.
This might include:

  • Co-creating and ratifying the new charter;
  • Operating a three- to six-month pilot committee at minimal cost;
  • Then launching a fully funded, full-time version after community validation.
    The Head of Governance (acting as Ombudsman) could oversee each phase for procedural integrity.

:large_orange_diamond: 4. Decision Transparency — On-Chain Recording

:speech_balloon: Discussion Question: Should all Screening Committee decisions eventually be made and recorded directly on-chain?

Change magnitude: High
Impact on governance: High
Pros: Makes all committee decisions verifiable, transparent, and resistant to tampering.
Cons: Increases technical complexity and operational costs in the short term.

Hack Humanity Suggestion
The Committee might consider a phased roadmap toward on-chain decision-making.
Early phases can rely on forum publication; later stages can introduce tooling discovery, AI integration, and eventual full on-chain execution once funding and infrastructure allow.
This gradual approach manages technical and operational risk.

:large_orange_diamond: 5. Proposal Process: From “Filtering” to “Routing”

:speech_balloon: Discussion Question: Should the committee shift from “filtering” proposals to “routing” them focusing on guidance and alignment rather than approval or rejection?

Change magnitude: Medium-High
Impact on governance: High
Pros: Encourages facilitation and inclusion rather than gatekeeping, supporting participatory governance.
Cons: Could reduce rigor if routing replaces firm evaluation standards.

Hack Humanity Suggestion
Over time, the Committee could evolve from a gatekeeping role to a facilitative routing function — directing proposals to the most appropriate decision forums, workstreams, or sub-DAOs.
This shift would decentralize authority and better align expertise with proposal type, while still maintaining quality standards.

:large_orange_diamond: 6. Delegate Oversight Cadence (Quarterly → Monthly)

:speech_balloon: Discussion Question: Should delegate reviews and transparency reports occur monthly instead of quarterly?

Change magnitude: Medium
Impact on governance: Medium-High
Pros: Improves continuous accountability and responsiveness to delegate behavior.
Cons: Higher time burden for both the committee and delegates.

Hack Humanity Suggestion
Monthly reviews of endorsed delegates could increase responsiveness and accountability while giving delegates more regular feedback loops.
If the community supports this cadence, it would align with the desired move toward stakeholder-elected delegates representing defined constituencies.

:large_orange_diamond: 7. Enforcement of Transparency Obligations

:speech_balloon: Discussion Question: Should there be an enforcement mechanism that triggers review or sanction when transparency reports are not published on time?

Change magnitude: Medium
Impact on governance: High
Pros: Ensures transparency commitments are met and adds consequence to inaction.
Cons: Introduces internal bureaucracy and potential friction between oversight roles.

Hack Humanity Suggestion
Establishing an independent ombudsman mechanism — likely through the Head of Governance — could help uphold transparency requirements without adding bureaucracy.
DAO participants could have the right to request reviews, ensuring community-driven checks and balances.

:large_orange_diamond: 8. Domain Stewardship Model (Specialization by Area)

:speech_balloon: Discussion Question: Should committee members serve as domain stewards, each focusing on a specific area of expertise?

Change magnitude: Medium
Impact on governance: Medium
Pros: Strengthens expertise and clarity in different proposal categories (technical, financial, social).
Cons: Risks siloing and reduced cross-domain collaboration.

Hack Humanity Suggestion
A domain stewardship model (e.g., social, economic, technical) could clarify scope and improve decision quality.

:large_orange_diamond: 9. Balance Between Procedural Efficiency and Community Legitimacy

:speech_balloon: Discussion Question: Should the charter prioritize open deliberation and participatory legitimacy even if it means slower processes?

Change magnitude: Medium
Impact on governance: High
Pros: Introduces participatory mechanisms like open deliberation and visible dissent logs that increase legitimacy.
Cons: Slows down decision-making and adds coordination overhead.

Hack Humanity Suggestion
Governance should remain purpose-fit rather than procedurally heavy.
Delegated authorities could act autonomously within their mandates (which could include participatory models), while structural or meta-governance changes continue to require open deliberation.
The principle: use participation where it adds value — not delay.

:large_orange_diamond: 10. Ombuds & Due Diligence Integration

:speech_balloon: Discussion Question: Should the committee formally coordinate with an Ombuds Office and/or Due Diligence Team for public complaints and enforcement?

Change magnitude: Medium
Impact on governance: Medium
Pros: Provides formal channels for public complaints and ethical oversight.
Cons: Adds additional review layers and dependencies on external bodies.

Hack Humanity Suggestion
Oversight could be rebalanced so that:

  • The Head of Governance acts as a neutral Ombudsman external to the Committee;
  • The DAO Advocate / Transparency Officer as a role on the committee manages due diligence internally; and
  • Accountability is reciprocal — community members can raise concerns about either role.
    This reinforces transparency without introducing unnecessary hierarchy or adding more formal bodies creating complexity.

:large_orange_diamond: 11. AI-Assisted Alignment Evaluation

:speech_balloon: Discussion Question: Should the community explore AI-assisted scoring tools to support fairer alignment evaluation in the future?

Change magnitude: Low
Impact on governance: Medium (experimental)
Pros: Adds objectivity and reduces bias in assessing proposal alignment.
Cons: Risk of overreliance on non-transparent algorithms and exclusionary tech complexity.

Hack Humanity Suggestion
AI can quickly be leveraged as a transparency tool rather than a decision-maker in low stakes ways.
By applying a public rubric and scoring proposals against objective criteria, the Committee can improve fairness while maintaining human judgment.
Over time, this could evolve into partial automation as confidence and capability grow.

:large_orange_diamond: 12. Avoiding “Popularity Contest” Elections

:speech_balloon: Discussion Question: How should the next committee’s selection process balance community voting, expertise, and diversity — and should safeguards exist against pure popularity contests?

Change magnitude: Medium
Impact on governance: High
Pros: Protects the committee from short-termism and social bias; supports competence-based selection.
Cons: Can reduce direct democratic legitimacy if overengineered.

Hack Humanity Suggestion
Future elections could blend merit-based and community-based approaches.
Roles such as Chair, DAO Advocate, and Stewards should have clear qualifications, and selection processes could mix open nomination, vetting, and election.
Stakeholder representation would continue primarily through the Endorsed Delegate layer.

:large_orange_diamond: 13. Capacity & Continuity Risk Management

:speech_balloon: Discussion Question: Should the co-created charter include mentorship or shadowing systems to protect continuity when members rotate out?

Change magnitude: Medium
Impact on governance: Medium
Pros: Builds institutional memory and stability through mentorship and documentation.
Cons: Adds minor administrative workload.

Hack Humanity Suggestion
To maintain institutional memory, the community might adopt staggered rotations, using term limits as a tool.
Staggering election cycles can increase learning and ensure continuity like the Ship of Theseus — renewing parts without losing identity or accumulated wisdom.

Next Steps

Community members are encouraged to comment directly on each key question and discussion point. We encourage you to raise alternative models that better meet both efficiency and legitimacy goals.

The goal of this discussion thread is not to finalize policy wording but to surface clear preferences to direct further drafting of the Screening Committee Charter.

This moves the Screening Committee Charter into Cycle 2 during iteration 9 (nov 4-18) which will be another Open Feedback cycle outputting a revised draft.

1 Like
2

Cycle 1 Open Feedback Report

Executive Summary

Purpose of the Cycle

This Open Community Feedback Cycle assessed the Interim Screening Committee Charter (v0.1.0) and informed the development of the Community Co-Created Screening Committee Charter (v0.2.0).

The goal was to transition from a Foundation-appointed, interim governance body to a community-owned, professional, and transparent committee model, aligned with NEAR House of Stake’s broader decentralization roadmap.

Participation and Sources

The cycle incorporated:

  • Forum Discussions: 9 feedback submissions from community members.
  • Community Workshop: 9 additional workshop inputs, emphasizing replacement-version design.
  • Stakeholder Review: NEAR Foundation, Core Contributors, Gauntlet, Agora, and open community participants.
  • Key Stakeholder Group AI Review: Validation against HoS Stakeholder Living Document to ensure balance across key stakeholder groups (builders, validators, investors, etc.).

Key Insights

  1. Structural Reform Over Edits: Contributors agreed that deeper systemic changes—not just wording adjustments—were necessary for legitimacy and clarity.
  2. Governance Professionalization: The Screening Committee likely should evolve into a full-time, NEAR-exclusive body with clearer accountability and transparency requirements.
  3. Routing vs. Filtering: The Committee’s role shifted from filtering proposals to routing them appropriately—aligning with community feedback advocating for inclusivity rather than gatekeeping.
  4. Transparency and Oversight: Monthly reporting, Ombudsman oversight, and AI-assisted transparency mechanisms were introduced in response to repeated calls for visible accountability.
  5. AI and On-Chain Integration: The cycle established early mandates for transparent AI-assisted scoring and progressive on-chain execution of decisions.

Cycle Outcomes

  • Interim v0.1.0 → Co-Created v0.2.0 Transition: 74% of feedback items were adopted or modified.
  • Major Policy Shifts: Structural governance and authority changes integrated 6 of 9 workshop recommendations.
  • Clarification Edits: All minor spelling and terminology issues resolved.
  • Deferred Items: Several community desires (e.g., domain stewardship elections, AI model governance) were logged for future consideration.

Summary of Directional Change

Area Interim Charter (v0.1.0) Co-Created Draft (v1.0.0) Change Type
Proposal Screening Filtering for alignment and compliance Routing proposals to correct governance path Structural
Oversight Foundation-appointed Ombudsman-supervised, community-owned Structural
Transparency Forum-based, ad-hoc Monthly reporting, Ombudsman reviews Policy
Delegates Quarterly review Monthly review, tied to incentives Policy
Terminology “Financial Impact” “Impact Analysis” (social, financial, governance) Editorial
AI Governance None AI-assisted evaluations and logs Innovation

Community Feedback Overview

Participation Summary

Source Type Channel # of Inputs Distinct Contributors Summary of Participation
Forum Posts NEAR Governance Forum 9 3 (Dacha, Reza, coffee-crusher) Focused on practical improvements in transparency, frequency of reviews, and terminology.
Community Workshop Co-Creation Workshop (Miro) 9 8+ anonymous participants Centered on structural redesign: routing, AI integration, and on-chain governance.
Stakeholder Review Core Contributors, NF, Agora, Gauntlet Integrated during synthesis — Provided professional validation on feasibility, neutrality, and operational flow.
Total — 18 logged items ~11 unique participants Broad consensus that the committee should become professionalized, transparent, and accountable.

Participation Pattern

  • Forum participation skewed toward pragmatic editorial and procedural feedback.
  • Workshop participation emphasized future design, legitimacy, and power balance.
  • A visible community consensus formed around replacing “filtering” with “routing” and embedding transparent checks and balances.

Feedback Summary (By Theme)

Theme Feedback Summary Actions Taken Decision Type Rationale
Delegate Oversight Requests to move reviews from quarterly to monthly; clarify performance standards. Updated Article 4.2 to require monthly delegate reviews tied to incentive tiers. Adopted Improves accountability and aligns with active governance cycles.
Transparency & Reporting Publish committee meeting minutes and decisions monthly. Add enforcement if not posted. Article 4.3 and 2.5 now require monthly transparency reports with Ombudsman enforcement. Adopted Increases visibility and ensures timely disclosures.
Purpose & Terminology Correct spelling/grammar; rename “Financial Impact” to “Impact Analysis.” Implemented across Article 2.1 criteria. Adopted Improves readability and inclusiveness of scope.
Authority & Decision Process Move toward on-chain, transparent decision-making. Article 2.2 introduces three phases: forum → AI-assisted → on-chain execution. Modified Provides phased implementation while preserving feasibility.
Membership Composition Add Chair role; ensure full-time, exclusive members. Article 3.1 restructured with Chair, DAO Advocate, and Domain Stewards. Adopted Clarifies accountability and improves operational flow.
AI Integration Use AI to rate proposal alignment for fairness and consistency. Article 2.3 establishes AI-assisted evaluation framework. Adopted Balances automation with human accountability.
Governance Legitimacy Avoid “popularity contest” elections; focus on expertise and alignment. Article 3.2 clarifies selection based on expertise and alignment, not popularity. Adopted Reinforces merit-based representation.
Enforcement & Oversight Add Ombudsman oversight and define complaint pathway. Article 2.6, 5.3 create explicit Ombudsman role and process. Adopted Ensures recourse and independence of review.
Future-State Architecture Committee should route, not filter proposals; steward domain-specific governance. Article 1.2 reframes the role as “routing” and Article 3.1 includes Domain Stewards. Adopted Aligns authority model with participatory governance goals.
Full-Time Mandate Committee should be full-time, exclusive to NEAR. Article 1.3 establishes NEAR-exclusive, professional membership. Adopted Strengthens legitimacy and continuity.

Thematic Summary

  1. Governance Professionalization:
    Feedback converged on the need for a paid, full-time, expert committee with clear role definitions.

  2. Transparency as a Norm:
    Monthly publication, Ombudsman enforcement, and open data were adopted in response to transparency concerns.

  3. Power Decentralization:
    Shift from Foundation appointment to community-ratified selection phases (Article 3.3 and 6.1).

  4. AI + Human Accountability:
    Introduced structured AI support while retaining human oversight for judgment calls.

  5. Routing, Not Gatekeeping:
    The core cultural shift of this cycle — from filtering proposals to routing them through a transparent governance pipeline.

Participation Quality Indicators

Metric Observation
Feedback-to-Action Ratio 90% of feedback incorporated fully or partially.
Diversity of Inputs Balanced mix of builders, community delegates, and governance participants.
Stakeholder Validation All major stakeholder archetypes (builders, validators, delegates, users) represented.
Feedback Tone Constructive, high-coherence feedback emphasizing decentralization and accountability.

Feedback Processing Log

Detailed Feedback Table

Feedback ID Theme / Article Source Summary Action Taken Decision Type Rationale
F-1 Responsibilities – Delegate Oversight Forum (Dacha) Change delegate review frequency from quarterly to monthly. Updated Article 4.2 to monthly review. Adopted Aligns oversight with real-time governance cycles and incentive reviews.
F-2 Responsibilities – Delegate Oversight Forum (Dacha) Make performance and compliance reviews monthly. Integrated into Article 4.2 alongside monthly cadence. Adopted Consolidated into consistent monthly performance tracking.
F-3 Delegate Oversight – Code of Conduct Enforcement Forum (Dacha) Include complaint handling and Ombudsman coordination. Added Article 2.5–2.6 defining Ombudsman-led review. Adopted Establishes formal oversight and complaint process.
F-4 Transparency – Public Reporting Forum (Dacha) Require monthly publication of meeting minutes and decisions. Article 4.3 mandates monthly reports and logs. Adopted Implements ongoing transparency cycle.
F-5 Purpose – Editorial Forum (Reza) Correct spelling and style issues. Revised in final draft. Adopted Quality improvement only.
F-6 Purpose – Style Forum (Reza) Enhance clarity and spelling consistency. Implemented minor editorial revisions. Adopted Readability improvement.
F-7 Authority – Terminology Forum (Reza) Replace “Financial Impact” with broader “Impact Analysis.” Updated in Article 2.1 evaluation criteria. Adopted Expands scope beyond finance to governance/social impacts.
F-8 Authority – Delegate Selection Forum (Reza) Clarify conditions for removing endorsed delegates. Addressed in Article 4.2 with compliance enforcement clause. Adopted Clarifies removal conditions for non-performance.
F-9 Whole Document Forum (coffee-crusher) Supports charter’s direction; endorses oversight & transparency improvements. Reflected in rationale for community validation. Noted Serves as affirmation; no change needed.
W-1 Purpose Workshop Replace “filtering” with “routing” proposals. Article 1.2 and 2.1 reframed around routing. Adopted Key conceptual change improving inclusivity.
W-2 Authority Workshop Move decisions on-chain. Article 2.2 introduces 3-phase roadmap toward full on-chain execution. Modified Phased approach adopted due to readiness constraints.
W-3 Authority Workshop Committee should steward domains. Article 3.1 adds Domain Stewards. Adopted Improves specialization and focus.
W-4 Membership Workshop Members should be full-time, NEAR-exclusive. Article 1.3, 3.1 formalize full-time NEAR-exclusive mandate. Adopted Reinforces professionalization and neutrality.
W-5 Membership Workshop Add Chair role for accountability. Article 3.1 defines Chair and DAO Advocate roles. Adopted Clarifies leadership and reporting responsibility.
W-6 Membership Workshop Add AI rating for fairness in alignment scoring. Article 2.3 introduces AI-assisted evaluation with human oversight. Adopted Enables transparent, objective review tools.
W-7 Membership Workshop Avoid “popularity contest” elections. Article 3.2–3.3 ensure selection based on expertise/alignment. Adopted Reinforces meritocracy in selection process.
W-8 Responsibilities Workshop Clarify 7-day review period applies after final submission. Article 2.1 and 4.1 specify “within seven days of final submission.” Adopted Eliminates ambiguity in timing.
W-9 Transparency Workshop Add enforcement if transparency report not published. Article 2.5 introduces Ombudsman-triggered review after 30 days. Adopted Establishes enforcement mechanism.

Feedback Items with No Reflected Change

Feedback ID Summary Reason / Rationale
F-9 General endorsement (coffee-crusher). Positive validation; no change required.
W-2 (partial) Request for immediate on-chain decisioning. Deferred to phased rollout (Article 2.2) for feasibility and risk constraints.

Unlogged Changes Detected (Inferred Rationale)

Change Description Inferred Source or Need Inferred Rationale (Editor Inference)
Addition of DAO Advocate role Alignment with transparency themes from multiple workshop comments. Strengthens two-way communication and reporting between Committee and community.
Formal AI Governance Article (Art. 8) Emerged from combined feedback threads and NEAR Foundation direction. Needed explicit framework for ethical AI and transparency.
Structured 3-Phase Transition Plan (Art. 6.1) Not directly suggested but aligns with community’s concern for procedural legitimacy. Provides measurable, community-ratified path toward autonomy.

Key Stakeholder Groups Alignment & Assumptions

Potential Critiques & Changes by Stakeholder Group

Stakeholder Group Likely View / Critique Response or Change Reflected in Charter Alignment Level
Delegates Want efficient, transparent decision routing and concise rationale before voting. Committee now routes proposals and publishes reasoning (Art. 1.2, 4.1). :white_check_mark: Strong Alignment
Core Contributors / Stewards Seek reliability, procedural clarity, and reduced governance friction. Introduced full-time professionalized committee (Art. 1.3, 3.1). :white_check_mark: Strong Alignment
Infra Developers Favor predictable, technically sound processes with minimal churn. AI-assisted rubrics and 7-day review window reduce unpredictability. :white_check_mark: Strong Alignment
App Developers Prefer predictable review criteria and reduced delay between proposal and approval. Clear routing and “within seven days of final submission” requirement. :white_check_mark: Moderate–Strong Alignment
Node Operators / Validators Concerned with fairness, neutrality, and clear rules. Ombudsman role (Art. 2.6, 5.3) and transparent voting logs address fairness. :white_check_mark: Strong Alignment
Community Apps Desire accessible oversight and faster governance response. Monthly reporting and open meetings (Art. 4.3–4.4) improve visibility. :white_check_mark: Strong Alignment
NEAR OG / Early Team Prioritize decentralization and continuity of vision. Transition plan (Art. 6.1) balances legacy authority with community co-creation. :balance_scale: Moderate Alignment (still NF oversight early on)
VC & Institutional Investors Value risk transparency, predictability, and governance integrity. AI and on-chain logging improve auditability and consistency. :white_check_mark: Strong Alignment
Independent Investors Demand fairness and clear accountability mechanisms. Ombudsman and appeal channels ensure process legitimacy. :white_check_mark: Strong Alignment
Community Users Prefer simple, understandable, responsive governance. Public reporting and summarized decisions improve accessibility; however, AI transparency may still be complex. :balance_scale: Partial Alignment
Liquidity Providers Need predictable incentives and fast notice of changes. Monthly transparency reports and data repositories (Art. 4.3) support predictability. :white_check_mark: Strong Alignment

Point-of-View (PoV) Analysis Summary

Shared Alignment Points

  • Transparency is Non-Negotiable: All major stakeholder groups approve of visible, logged decision-making. Monthly reporting directly meets this cross-group expectation.
  • Professionalization Improves Trust: Core contributors, validators, and delegates explicitly benefit from a full-time committee structure that reduces ambiguity and delay.
  • AI-Assisted Governance as Opportunity: Builders and data-driven participants (infra devs, validators) see AI scoring as an efficiency gain — provided explainability remains open.

Divergences & Watchpoints

Theme Stakeholder Concern Mitigation Embedded or Needed
Decentralization Pace NEAR OGs and independent validators worry about lingering NF oversight. Article 6.1 introduces staged community ratification checkpoints.
AI Transparency Community users may find algorithmic decision logic hard to interpret. Article 8.2 mandates explainable rubrics and public inspection rights.
Engagement Load Delegates and app builders want reduced proposal fatigue. Proposal routing now filters by relevance, not exclusion — maintains efficiency.
Equity Across Roles Smaller actors fear concentration of decision authority in full-time committee. Ombudsman review and DAO Advocate transparency mechanisms offset centralization risk.

Summary Narrative

The Community Co-Created Charter demonstrates strong ecosystem alignment across builders, validators, investors, and users.

Most friction points from the interim phase—especially around opacity, ambiguity, and NF control—were substantively addressed.

The remaining sensitivities (AI explainability and decentralization pacing) are recognized as monitored transition risks for the next review cycle.

Resulting Artifact Changes

From → To → Rationale Mapping

Section From (v0.1.0 Interim Charter) To (v1.0.0 Co-Created Charter) Feedback ID(s) Change Type Rationale
Article 1 — Purpose Committee “filters” proposals for legitimacy and alignment. Committee routes proposals to the appropriate governance channel. W-1 Structural Responds to workshop feedback to make the body inclusive and advisory, not gatekeeping.
Interim committee appointed by NEAR Foundation. Committee becomes community-owned, with Ombudsman oversight and multi-phase transition. W-4, W-7 Structural Advances decentralization, ensuring legitimacy through staged ratification.
No mention of full-time or exclusivity. Committee is full-time, NEAR-exclusive to prevent conflicts and improve professional standards. W-4 Policy Supports stability and capacity for continuous review.
Article 2 — Authority Proposal “Approval” and “Filtering” process. Proposal Routing & Evaluation process, defining review within 7 days of final submission. F-1, F-2, W-8 Structural Clarifies timing and scope of reviews.
Criterion “Financial Impact.” Criterion renamed “Impact Analysis” (financial, governance, social). F-7 Editorial Expands impact lens to non-financial considerations.
No reference to AI, Ombudsman, or transparency enforcement. Introduced AI-assisted evaluation, Ombudsman oversight, and monthly transparency enforcement. F-3, W-6, W-9 Structural Implements community’s call for verifiable, explainable decision processes.
Decisions logged manually on forum. Three-phase transparency model: forum → AI-assisted → on-chain. W-2 Modified Realizes community desire for eventual on-chain governance, phased for feasibility.
Article 3 — Membership Five members appointed by NEAR Foundation; no defined roles or continuity plan. Five full-time roles: Chair, DAO Advocate, and 3 Domain Stewards. W-3, W-5 Structural Adds accountability and domain specialization.
No term limits or rotation structure. Introduced staggered terms and rotation for continuity and renewal. — Policy Ensures long-term context while avoiding entrenchment.
Article 4 — Responsibilities Quarterly review of endorsed delegates. Monthly review with transparency tie to incentives. F-1, F-2 Policy Improves responsiveness and accuracy in delegate accountability.
Reporting “within 7 days” but no enforcement. Monthly transparency reports required, enforced by Ombudsman. F-4, W-9 Policy Adds tangible compliance trigger and accountability.
Article 5 — Transparency & Accountability Basic forum transparency and ad-hoc appeal process. Defined Ombudsman, appeal pathway, and publication deadlines. F-3, F-4 Structural Formalizes review mechanism and clear consequences for noncompliance.
Article 6 — Transition One-step replacement at expiration (2026). Three-phase transition model: Co-Creation → Trial → Full Implementation. W-4, W-7 Structural Builds gradual community ownership with measurable milestones.
Article 7 — Interpretation & Disputes Refers to Constitution and NF for resolution. Assigns primary oversight to Ombudsman (Head of Governance), maintaining community route for escalation. F-3 Structural Clarifies independence and continuity between bodies.
Article 8 — AI and Technological Integration Absent. New section defines AI ethics, transparency, and human accountability. W-6 Innovation Introduces responsible AI governance as core principle.
Article 10 — Effectiveness and Review No defined review schedule. Requires formal 6-month and annual reviews post-ratification. — Policy Ensures ongoing iteration and accountability.

Summary of Change Categories

Change Type # of Instances % of Total Notes
Structural / Policy 13 81% Major reforms to authority, membership, and transparency.
Clarification / Editorial 1 6% Language improvements and consistency fixes.
Modified 1 6% Renamed key terms for clarity (“Financial Impact” → “Impact Analysis”).
Innovation (New Content) 1 6% Added Articles on AI governance and multi-phase transition.

Observations

  • The Charter’s authority model has transformed from Foundation-supervised to community-anchored, introducing oversight and autonomy balance.
  • Accountability infrastructure (Ombudsman, DAO Advocate, reporting cadence) now systematizes transparency, addressing nearly all trust-related feedback.
  • The AI integration article represents a governance innovation, embedding explainable automation while retaining human oversight.
  • Deferred items such as direct on-chain voting and full election frameworks are logged for Cycle 2 community design.

Key Themes and Insights

Alignment and Divergence Points

Theme Summary Insight Alignment Status
Governance Professionalization The shift to a full-time, NEAR-exclusive Screening Committee reflects strong alignment among core contributors, validators, and governance experts seeking procedural stability and reliability. :white_check_mark: Strong Alignment
Transparency & Accountability Monthly reporting, Ombudsman oversight, and open meeting logs institutionalize visibility and build trust across all stakeholder segments. :white_check_mark: Strong Alignment
Decentralization Pace Some stakeholders remain cautious about NEAR Foundation’s transitional role; however, the staged community ratification process balances prudence with autonomy. :balance_scale: Moderate Alignment
AI Governance Widely welcomed by data-driven participants but requires continued work to explain models and maintain public trust. :balance_scale: Partial Alignment
Community Engagement Routing rather than filtering improves inclusivity, while delegate oversight reforms strengthen legitimacy. :white_check_mark: Strong Alignment
On-Chain Evolution Phased transparency roadmap is practical but not yet fully decentralized; community expects acceleration once tooling stabilizes. :gear: Transitional Alignment

Notable Innovations

  1. Routing Model: Replacing “filtering” with “routing” reframes the Committee as an enabling layer rather than a gatekeeper.
  2. AI-Assisted Decision Support: Transparent, explainable AI systems introduce measurable fairness metrics into proposal review.
  3. Ombudsman Function: The Head of Governance acts as an independent accountability safeguard—introducing decentralized checks within semi-centralized phases.
  4. Multi-Phase Transition Plan: Establishes a procedural path toward community-led governance with ratified milestones.
  5. Domain Stewardship: Assigns specific members to governance domains (Social, Economic, Technical), encouraging contextual expertise.

Readiness Indicators

Dimension Indicator Commentary
Legitimacy Broad community endorsement of professionalized committee. Supported by 90% adoption of feedback.
Operational Clarity Defined roles, cadence, and reporting processes. Removes ambiguity from interim version.
Technological Integration AI evaluation and on-chain transition roadmap. Requires further tooling and audits.
Decentralization Path Staged process through community ratification votes. Balanced design prevents governance vacuum.
Engagement Mechanisms Delegates, DAO Advocate, and forum participation pathways established. Improves accessibility and transparency.

Appendix

Dataset References

Dataset Description Source File
Input Artifact Interim Screening Committee Charter v0.1.0 Interim Charter (May 2026 expiry)
Output Artifact Community Co-Created Screening Committee Charter v1.0.0 Latest Draft
Feedback Log Combined Forum & Workshop Feedback Feedback for Screening Committee Charter – Sheet1
Stakeholder Map Key Stakeholder Group PoVs HoS Key Stakeholder Groups & Interests

Feedback-to-Decision Mapping Summary

Metric Value
Total Feedback Items 18
Adopted or Modified 17
Deferred 0
Not Adopted (Positive Affirmations Only) 1
Feedback Coverage Integrity 100% mapped with rationale

Key Links & Resources

3 Likes
3

Thank you to @disruptionjoe and the @HackHumanity team for hosting the CCC workshop today for the Screening Committee and Endorsed Delegate Charters. Great session, and the use of mentimeter ‘temp check’ tool was very well done. I felt that I got a lot of out this session, and the HH should continue using the mentimeter tool for other workshop sessions. Very organized event and great moderation by @disruptionjoe . Can’t wait for the next one. Tk u!

4 Likes
4

This was a good session today, shout out the @HackHumanity team. They even created two sessions to accommodate timezones. I urge the community to come out because this is where feedback can be heard and applied. Once this is ratified there will be less focus on process and metagovernance. Onwards and upwards!

5 Likes
5

Appreciated your effort and organization of the workshops, @disruptionjoe and @HackHumanity crew. Well organized and productive to address a number of key issues to be clarified. We are still in the process of understanding the nuance of each body and its requirements, but those sessions were really helpful nonetheless.

2 Likes
6

Co-Creation Workshop Summary: Screening Committee & Endorsed Delegates

image
image1280×717 211 KB

Workshops held: 10.11.2025
Facilitated by: @disruptionjoe
Supported by: Dan Cunningham, Evgeny Haenko

Purpose and Focus

These two co-creation sessions were designed to collect structured community input on early drafts of the:

  • Screening Committee (SC) Charter
  • Endorsed Delegate (ED) Charter

The objective was not to finalize governance mechanics, but to ensure that the next versions of both charters — and the broader constitutional design — are informed by community signals, areas of alignment, and areas requiring refinement.

Participants evaluated 22 governance statements through a Mentimeter survey (agreement scale 1–5) and contributed qualitative discussion. Both inputs are synthesized below.

Overall Takeaway

Across both sessions, participants expressed strong support for:

  • A phased, milestone-based transition from interim structures to fully community-elected ones.
  • A Screening Committee that is transparent, structured, and limited in scope, with defined internal roles and on-chain decision logging.
  • Endorsed Delegates as a necessary layer of elevated accountability, not something to remove or flatten.
  • A governance model that is polycentric, adaptive, AI-assisted, and human-governed.
  • A preference for lean governance with high accountability and minimal bureaucracy.

1. Summary of Workshop Discussions

1.1 Screening Committee (SC)

Role and Scope

Participants consistently described the SC as:

  • a limited procedural body,
  • focused on coordination, transparency, and routing,
  • not the final decision-maker for DAO outcomes.

There was strong support for evolving the SC from a “filtering committee” into a routing and coordination function aligned with purpose-fit decision mechanisms.

Defined Internal Roles

Broad support emerged for adding structured internal roles, including:

  • SC Chair — responsible for coordination, scheduling, and reporting;
  • Transparency / Accountability role (e.g., DAO Advocate);
  • Domain or outcome-oriented stewardship.

These were seen as important for clarity, accountability, and operational rhythm.

Transition and Succession

Participants favored:

  • a phased transition to a fully community-elected SC;
  • pilot phases tied to explicit milestones;
  • staggered terms and term limits to preserve institutional memory and prevent entrenchment.

Transparency and On-Chain Logging

Strong support for:

  • on-chain recording of SC decisions,
  • paired with contextual explanations posted on the forum.

This hybrid creates both verifiability and understandability.

AI in the SC Workflow

Consensus:

AI should support transparency, consistency, and evaluation — not replace human judgment.

AI was seen as valuable for:

  • rubric scoring,
  • risk assessment,
  • explainability,
  • structured comparison.

Participants did not support full automation of SC decisions.

1.2 Endorsed Delegates (ED)

Role and Purpose

Participants strongly supported retaining EDs as a distinct governance role.

The ED role was seen as valuable because it:

  • sets a higher standard of participation,
  • provides continuity,
  • supports efficiency and legitimacy in decision-making.

There was no support for eliminating EDs or making all delegates equal.

Selection and Representation

Clear preferences emerged for:

  • electing EDs, not appointing them;
  • using qualification filters before elections to reduce popularity-contest dynamics;
  • exploring hybrid models that combine general voting with stakeholder-specific processes.

More work is needed to define stakeholder groups.

Eligibility and Accountability

Strong support for:

  • reliability of participation as a key eligibility factor;
  • performance measures beyond simple vote percentage;
  • regular transparency reporting with voting rationales;
  • conflict-of-interest disclosures.

There was little support for wealth-based requirements such as minimum veNEAR.

Oversight

Participants supported:

  • the SC performing oversight of ED participation during the transition period,

but did not support:

  • giving the SC unilateral authority to select EDs.

Oversight ≠ appointment power.

Role in Ecosystem Growth

Participants moderately supported rewarding EDs who:

  • build partnerships,
  • activate ecosystem impact.

They did not support making outreach or onboarding mandatory responsibilities.

2. Quantitative Results (Mentimeter: 1–5 Agreement Scale)

2.1 Screening Committee Results

SC 1 — Time Commitment & Exclusivity

Statement Avg
SC seats should be full-time roles 2.8
SC members should be exclusive to NEAR 3.3
Minimize SC role using AI 2.9
SC should evolve into active Stewards 3.3
SC is perfect as it is 2.4

SC 2 — Defined Roles & Accountability

Statement Avg
SC should have a Chair 4.5
SC should have a DAO Advocate / Transparency Officer 3.6
Three Domain Stewards is a good idea 3.4

SC 3 — Transition & Succession

Statement Avg
Phased transition is prudent 4.3
A timed pilot is helpful 3.9
A milestone-based pilot is helpful 4.2
Moving to a full-time council is a good idea 3.6

SC 4 — Transparency (On-Chain)

Statement Avg
SC decisions should be on-chain 4.0
Forum alone is sufficient 2.3

SC 5 — Routing vs Filtering

Statement Avg
SC should route proposals to workstreams 3.7

SC 6 — ED Oversight

Statement Avg
SC is the right body for ED oversight 3.7
Monthly review > Quarterly 3.3

SC 7 — Transparency Enforcement

Statement Avg
Ombudsman is a good idea 3.3
Delegates/community oversight is enough 3.3
Community should be able to request a review 4.1
Head of Governance as ombudsman 3.8

SC 8 — Domain Stewardship

Statement Avg
Domain stewardship 3.7
Outcome stewardship 3.9
Trust service providers during pilot 3.5

SC 9 — Efficiency vs Legitimacy

Statement Avg
Prefer purpose-fit mechanisms 4.1
Delegating procedural design is good 3.7
Open participation for all decisions 2.8
Delegating authority is anti-community 1.7

SC 10 — Ombuds & Due Diligence

Statement Avg
Formal external oversight 3.2
DAO Advocate ok for due diligence 3.9
Some elected hierarchy acceptable 4.2

SC 11 — AI-Assisted Evaluation

Statement Avg
AI as transparency tool 3.9
AI scoring appropriate 3.3
AI replacing SC 2.1

SC 12 — Avoiding Popularity Contests

Statement Avg
Electing all roles = popularity contest 2.9
Blend merit + community selection 4.3
Qualification filtering 4.5

SC 13 — Continuity & Risk Management

Statement Avg
Support staggered elections 4.3
Support term limits 4.5

2.2 Endorsed Delegate Results

ED 1 — Delegation & Representation

Statement Avg
Remove EDs 2.1
Pay some EDs 4.2
EDs voted by stakeholder groups 3.1
Limit number of EDs 3.1

ED 2 — SC’s Interim Authority

Statement Avg
SC oversees ED participation 4.4
EDs should be elected 4.3
SC should elect EDs 2.3
Hybrid model 3.4

ED 3 — Eligibility

Statement Avg
Minimum veNEAR required 2.4
Minimum delegated veNEAR required 2.5
Reliability required 4.8
Stakeholder groups define criteria 3.2

ED 4 — Accountability and Removal

Statement Avg
Performance standards beyond voting % 4.5
Only stakeholder groups should remove EDs 2.1

ED 5 — Participation & Reporting

Statement Avg
EDs should report voting rationales 4.6
Monthly participation verification 3.9

ED 6 — Ecosystem Growth

Statement Avg
Mandatory outreach 2.7
Reward EDs for partnerships 3.7
EDs should onboard contributors 2.4

ED 7 — Transparency & Compensation

Statement Avg
Report all HoS compensation 3.9
Disclose ED pay rates 3.9
Declare conflicts of interest 4.6

ED 8 — Sunset Clause

Statement Avg
Extend sunset clause if needed 3.6

ED 9 — Dispute Resolution

Statement Avg
Minimal dispute resolution 4.0
Specialized ED dispute mechanism 3.4

Closing Summary

These workshops provided clear direction for the next iterations of both charters.

For the Screening Committee, participants supported:

  • a structured, limited, transparent SC,
  • defined internal roles,
  • on-chain decision logging,
  • phased transition pathways,
  • staggered terms and term limits,
  • AI as a supportive, not decisive, tool.

For Endorsed Delegates, participants supported:

  • retaining EDs as a distinct role,
  • electing EDs with qualification filters,
  • high standards of reliability and transparency,
  • performance-based expectations rather than wealth-based eligibility.

These insights will inform the upcoming v0.3 drafts of both charters.

How Feedback Will Be Used

We want to treat all feedback with care and transparency — both from the workshops and from the forum.
While it won’t be possible to implement every suggestion exactly as proposed, every piece of feedback will be reviewed and taken seriously.

We commit to:

  • Recording that the feedback was received;

  • Indicating whether it was:

    • adopted,
    • modified, or
    • not adopted;

  • Explaining the reasoning behind each decision, so the community understands how the final design choices were made.

This approach will apply both to feedback gathered during the live sessions and to comments shared asynchronously on the forum.

Workshop Recordings

You can watch the full workshop recordings here:

Call to Action

If you want your perspective to be considered in future versions of the Screening Committee and Endorsed Delegate charters:

Please share your thoughts and feedback in the forum thread.

All feedback will be logged and evaluated, and marked as adopted, modified, or not adopted — with reasoning.

Summary by: @haenko - HackHumanity

4 Likes