Scope of technical committee within on-chain governance

I would like to refine the definition of the technical committee’s scope within on-chain governance.

the goal is :

  • to vote bugfix runtime upgrades
  • to fix storage inconsistencies
  • to remove or not smiths from offence blacklist

the goal is not :

  • to change currency or web of trust rules
  • to make “on-chain justice” (like deactivating Sybil accounts)
  • to make consumer service (like giving back money from a lost account)

I would like to make sure what does the current implementation allow and what we should change about it. This will let us communicate to the community the fact that there is some place for less technical on-chain governance if we wish so and to be precise about the technical committee scope.

As an example of what we do not want the technical committee to do, I made two proposals (4 and 5). Please vote for them so that we can check how the origin system currently work.


Gavin Wood has been working on a second governance system named “governance version 2”, you can see its announcement on polkadot discourse forum : Calling Polkadot Core Developers - Governance - Polkadot Forum.

1 Like