Reduce the committeeMinSize parameter from 7 to 5
Intersect’s Civics Committee and Technical Steering Committee propose to change the **minimum** Constitutional Committee size (`committeeMinSize`) from 7 to 5 in order to improve operational resilience while maintaining constitutional safeguards. The ratification of this Governance Action depends on the enactment of another live Parameter Change Governance Action (`gov_action1eqhnsdyf3exhp5mqt7sdjtl7xy69wqg8tvg854psns2jt72cra3qqrcnr8r`), which will change a number of Plutus cost model settings in preparation for the van Rossem hard fork.
Reasoning
Written after the vote was cast
What this asks for, and from whom
A protocol parameter change reducing committeeMinSize from 7 to 5, so on-chain governance can keep functioning when the Constitutional Committee is short-handed.
What would have to be true for this to be a good use of treasury funds
No treasury funds involved. The test here is different: does this keep governance operating without quietly weakening the checks that make a Constitutional Committee worth having?
What specifically concerns me
Lowering a quorum threshold always deserves suspicion, because the easy fix for "we cannot reach quorum" is usually "lower the quorum," and that ratchet only turns one direction. What got me to yes is the practical reality. A governance system that halts because it cannot seat enough members is not more decentralized, it is just broken. Five is still a real committee.
What I am asking of the proposer if this passes
It was enacted. My ask going forward is that this stays a floor and not a trend. If the next proposal is 5 to 3, I am voting no, and I am saying so now so nobody is surprised.