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

**URL:** <https://gov.near.org/t/co-created-screening-committee-charter-v0-2-0-discussion-and-draft-for-community-review/41769>\
**Category:** Hack Humanity\
**Tags:** cycles, constitution, hackhumanity\
**Created:** [November 10, 2025, 2:09am UTC](https://gov.near.org/t/co-created-screening-committee-charter-v0-2-0-discussion-and-draft-for-community-review/41769 "2025-11-10T02:09:34Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![HackHumanity](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/gov.near.org/hackhumanity/32/54229_2.png) [@HackHumanity](https://gov.near.org/u/HackHumanity)\
**Post date:** [November 19, 2025, 12:08am UTC](https://gov.near.org/t/co-created-screening-committee-charter-v0-2-0-discussion-and-draft-for-community-review/41769/6 "2025-11-19T00:08:57Z")

</div>

# Co-Creation Workshop Summary: Screening Committee & Endorsed Delegates

 ![image](https://europe1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/uploads/gov_near/original/3X/1/6/165446a6355b866fbe8773efda38eaed58ed4d99.jpeg)

**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:

- **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](https://tldv.io/app/meetings/6914a331f7ffbc0013ad713d/)
- **Workshop 2:** [video recording](https://tldv.io/app/meetings/69160176cab9e3001374ba6e/)

* * *

# 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

---

_[View the full topic](https://gov.near.org/t/co-created-screening-committee-charter-v0-2-0-discussion-and-draft-for-community-review/41769)._