HSP-010: Transition to an Elected HoS Screening Committee

[Dacha]

HSP-010: Transition to an Elected HoS Screening Committee

Summary (TL;DR)

This proposal transitions the House of Stake (HoS) Screening Committee from a NEAR Foundation–appointed body to an elected, community-approved committee.

• The current Screening Committee must approve and forward this proposal and cannot block it due to “conflict of interest.”

• Elections must occur within 30 days of this proposal being passed.

• Voting will be individual per candidate (not slate-based).

• Endorsed Delegates must abstain from voting where personal or financial conflicts exist.

• If no candidates are approved in the first round, the current Screening Committee must suspend all operationsuntil new members are elected.

• The new committee will be diverse, representative, and governed by a formal Charter approved by the community.

---

1. Motivation

The current Screening Committee was appointed by the NEAR Foundation (NF) and is effectively controlled by NF and affiliated service providers.

This creates:

• Centralization of power

• Structural conflict of interest

• Ability to block candidates or proposals without community consent

• Lack of transparency and accountability

• Misalignment with HoS values: community participation, permissionless governance, decentralization

To restore legitimacy and decentralization, the Screening Committee must become elected, representative, and accountable to the community.

Reference : https://gov.near.org/t/transitioning-the-screening-committee/41490

---

2. Specification

2.1 Transition to Elected Screening Committee

HoS governance will elect a new Screening Committee.

The current Screening Committee:
Must approve this proposal
Must not block or delay due to “conflict of interest”
Must forward it to a HoS vote

2.2 30-Day Election Window

Once the proposal is ratified, elections must occur within 30 days.

2.3 Open Nomination Process

Anyone in the community may apply publicly here: https://gov.near.org/t/transitioning-the-screening-committee/41490.

2.4 Individual Voting

HoS community will vote on each candidate separately.
A candidate is approved if they receive a majority.

2.5 Conflict of Interest Rule

Endorsed Delegates or any voter with personal or financial conflict of interest must abstain from voting on that candidate.

---

3. Safeguard Against Obstruction

If after the first round no candidates are approved:

The current Screening Committee must immediately suspend its operations.
It cannot screen candidates or block proposals.
Its only permitted action is to facilitate new elections until a committee is elected.

---

4. Composition of the New Committee

Role	Seats
NEAR Foundation representative	1
NF Service provider / NF contractor representative	1
Independent community members (deep NEAR & Web3 governance knowledge)	3

Independent community members must not have any connection to the NEAR Foundation (NF), be affiliated with the NF or any of its contractors, be affiliated with the HoS Core Team or its contractors, or be part of that team. They must also have no affiliation with the HoS Foundation Team, including its board, representatives, or related entities.

In addition, they must not be in any way connected with existing endorsed delegates or self-nominated delegates, must not receive any salary, compensation, or benefits from them, must not have provided services or participated in joint projects with them, and must not hold shared or direct investments in any such joint projects. They must also not be direct relatives or family members of any of the above-mentioned persons or entities.

The purpose of independent members of the Screening Committee is to represent no single side or interest and to remain entirely free from any influence, dependency, or affiliation with any entity within the House of Stake ecosystem.

Rationale:

• Multi-stakeholder structure

• No single entity controls outcomes

• Increased legitimacy and decentralization

---

5. Screening Committee Charter

After elections, a new Screening Committee Charter must be approved by the HoS.

The Charter will define:

• Scope of authority

• Screening criteria and process

• Recusal & conflict of interest policy

• Transparency and reporting requirements

• Term length and limits

• Removal and replacement procedure

---

6. Timeline

Phase	Deadline
Proposal Ratified	Day 0
Nominations Open	Day 0–7
HoS Voting	Day 7–21
Results Published	Day 21–25
Committee Installed	Day 25–30
Charter Drafted & Ratified	Shortly after installation

[disruptionjoe]

This proposal creates a bifurcation of dual efforts both working towards the same goal - expiditing the replacement of the Interim Screening Committee.It shows proactivity from community and allows us to step up to get it done, showing commitment to progressive decentralization in action, not just rhetoric. This is a good thing.

In the beginning of the assembly phase, it is important for us to not simply take the first solution presented, but to cocreate the best solution possible. This is why we would like to combine these efforts.

A discussion to replace the Interim Screening Committee Charter is underway using the co-creation cycle process and the Open Feedback Period ends on October 29th. Replacing the charter with a new selection process and rules for participation is the first step to a legitimate replacement.

During the workshop, we will receive both specific issues with the interim version and desired inclusions for the replacement. Together, we will use this to develop some first principles upon which a replacement charter may be drafted.

For anyone following this thread, here is how you can provide feedback:

1. Comment on this thread
2. Comment on the interim Screening Committee thread
3. Join the open workshop coming on Monday 27.8.25. Details on the post below:

NEAR House of Stake - Interim Screening Committee Charter

Thank you all for the great feedback so far. The co-creation process is underway to design a replacement Screening Committee Charter, which is the first step to replacing the Interim Screening Committee. If you would like to join a live workshop to give feedback, please join the Constitution workshop this coming Monday where we will be taking feedback on this and the endorsed delegate charter as well as the Constitution itself.

[disruptionjoe]

As I’ve been working on the feedback received thus far, I wanted to update how I’m connecting my thinking to this proposal.

I really appreciate how it articulates such a clear rationale for why the Screening Committee’s structure needs to evolve. The call for legitimacy, transparency, and community accountability is very much aligned with the feedback and design work we’ve been seeing across this cycle.

Below is a short synthesis comparing your proposal with the current ideas being considered and a few reflections from my side.

---

Summary of This HSP-010 Proposal

• Transitions the Screening Committee from a NEAR Foundation–appointed body to an elected, community-approved committee.
• Elections must happen within 30 days of proposal passage; current members must forward the proposal and may not block it for “conflict of interest.”
• Voting occurs individually per candidate (not slates).
• Conflict-of-interest rules require Endorsed Delegates and others with personal or financial conflicts to abstain.
• If no candidates are elected, the current committee must suspend all operations until new members are seated.
• The new committee’s composition: 1 NF rep, 1 NF contractor rep, and 3 independent community members with no affiliations.
• A new Screening Committee Charter must then be approved to define scope, term limits, authority, and transparency standards.

---

Comparison to my current draft

Area	HSP-010 Proposal	My Suggestions	Alignment / Tension
Transition Method	Immediate community election and replacement of current NF-appointed committee.	Gradual transition to a hybrid model using AI-assisted screening and humans in the loop. Support community election process with filtering for viable and qualified candidates co-created Charter.	Tension: HSP-010 favors fast replacement; mine prioritizes staged decentralization and institutional setup first.
Timeline	30-day election window.	No fixed window; transition linked to ratification of new Charter.	Tension: One seeks urgency; the other, deliberation and design.
Structure	Keeps “committee” form with fixed seats and independence criteria.	Shifts to a steward committee model with specialized roles (chair, ombudsman, etc).	Tension: Governance model differs, but both pursue distributed accountability.
Conflict-of-Interest Controls	Strict abstention and independence requirements.	Calls for future COI policy and ombudsman oversight.	Alignment in principle; difference in timing and implementation.
Accountability & Legitimacy	Legitimacy through open election.	Legitimacy through progressive decentralization, transparency, and role clarity plus election.	Complementary goals; divergent sequencing.

---

My Reflections

I deeply appreciate the intention behind this proposal of restoring community legitimacy and reducing perceived centralization. Those goals are fully aligned with the spirit of the work I’ve done for the last 8 years and consider my professional purpose in life.

My main concern is the immediacy of the transition and the short election timeline and the realization that if it fails, we will end up in the “chaos to centralization trap”. I’d prefer to make clear milestones for progressive decentralization and build up small wins to show the community a commitment to what has been promised.

An immediate 30-day replacement prioritizes structural change (that hasn’t worked for other DAOs) over progressive decentralization. At this early stage, the total amount of veNEAR participation (voting power) is still relatively low, meaning the resulting election could carry less legitimacy than intended.

A rapid election cycle also risks turning into a popularity-driven process before we’ve fully defined:

• The actual work and accountability expected of Screening members,
• What qualifications or exclusive commitments those roles require, and
• How reporting, transparency, and procedural continuity will function once the new body is installed.

I think the more sustainable path is to take the intent of HSP-010 — full democratization and independence — and blend it with the phased, capacity-building approach. That way we can avoid a gap in operations and design a structure that will last beyond a single election cycle.

---

Next Steps

I want to reassure you that all the points raised here are being taken seriously and integrated into the drafting work for the next version of the Constitution.

When the updated draft comes out next week, we’ll be able to dig into the details together especially around governance mechanics, eligibility, and term structure.

If we can get close alignment in this next iteration, there’s a real chance the community could be ready to ratify an updated Screening Committee framework at the end of the next cycle (which would be within 30 days from now).

Thanks again for putting your ideas forward and for continuing to push the discussion on legitimacy and representation. These are exactly the debates that make the process stronger.