PCF DOT Director Appointment Process — Next Steps Following Referendum 1749

autonomous_projects
4hrs 19mins ago
0 Comments

Summary

This discussion is intended to clarify the current framework for appointing Directors to the Polkadot Community Foundation (PCF) following the outcome of Referendum #1749, address community concerns raised during that vote, and outline the legally valid process that remains in effect under the PCF’s existing governing documents.

This post is:

  • Not a nomination
  • Not a new referendum
  • A discussion to align expectations prior to any future submissions

1. Background — Referendum #1749

Referendum #1749:
https://polkadot.polkassembly.io/referenda/1749

The referendum proposed introducing a new structured and orderly community nomination process for DOT Directors. The proposal did not pass.

Community feedback during the referendum process highlighted:

  • Concerns regarding the PCF’s structure

  • Questions around DOT Director roles, responsibilities, and accountability

  • Uncertainty around the legal and procedural onboarding requirements

    The outcome of the referendum is acknowledged and respected.

2. Status of the PCF Governance Framework Following the Failed Referendum

While Referendum #1749 did not pass:

  • The PCF’s governing documents adopted under prior referenda remain fully in effect
  • These documents continue to permit community DOT Director nominations
  • Under the current framework, nominations operate on a:
    • First-come, first-served basis
    • Subject to eligibility, legal onboarding, and Cayman registration

Accordingly, the failure of Referendum #1749 did not eliminate the community’s ability to nominate Directors. It only rejected the specific structured process proposed in that referendum.

3. Position on Community-Appointed Directors

From the current Board’s perspective:

  • There is no identified downside to appointing two DOT Directors from the community
  • There is potential downside to indefinitely declining to do so, including impacts to:
    • Decentralization
    • Perceived legitimacy
    • Community alignment
    • Governance resilience

As a result:

  • Autonomous Projects intends to submit referenda on behalf of the Polkadot Community Foundation for director nominations, in line with the existing governance framework
  • Prior to doing so, this discussion is being held to:
    • Address community questions
    • Clarify the current governance structure
    • Provide context on the legal framework
    • Allow proposals for improvement to be raised openly

4. What the Current PCF Governing Documents Permit

Under the PCF Articles, Bylaws, and Director Appointment Policy:

  • DOT Directors may be appointed through community proposals
  • Nominees must:
    • Be clearly identified
    • Meet eligibility requirements
    • Complete legal onboarding (KYC, Director Services Agreement, Cayman registration)

The Appointment Policy further outlines:

  • Open public nominations
  • Shortlisting
  • A community signaling (non-binding) referendum
  • Legal onboarding

These requirements exist to ensure Directors appointed through OpenGov can legally serve under Cayman Islands law.

5. Purpose of This Discussion

This discussion is being conducted before any new nomination referenda in order to:

  • Clarify what is presently legally permitted
  • Address concerns raised during Referendum #1749
  • Explain:
    • How nominations currently function
    • How the community may participate today
    • Which aspects require further referenda to modify
  • Provide a forum to:
    • Ask questions
    • Challenge assumptions
    • Propose procedural improvements

Community engagement may take place in this thread, on AAG, and in other public venues.

6. Community Feedback Requested

Community input is requested on the following:

  1. Should community Director appointments proceed under the current framework?
  2. What governance, procedural, or accountability changes would strengthen the role of community appointed Directors?
  3. What specific issues influenced votes against Referendum #1749?
  4. Should a revised orderly nomination framework be proposed in the future?
  5. What safeguards would materially increase confidence in the process?

7. Conclusion

This discussion seeks to:

  • Respect the outcome of Referendum #1749
  • Acknowledge community concerns
  • Clarify the current legal and governance position
  • Reaffirm that:
    • Community nominations remain permissible
    • The Board supports community Director appointments
    • Procedural improvements can be proposed transparently through OpenGov

Constructive feedback in this thread will directly inform the approach to any future Director nomination referenda.

Up
Comments