Co-Creation Workshop Summary: Screening Committee & Endorsed Delegates
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:
- Workshop 1: video recording
- Workshop 2: video recording
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