Good stuff. 1) I do think it might make sense to add a couple more judiciary members. One downside there is that being on the judiciary is actually going to require quite a lot of work - you can't just show up and vote; you have to write numerous, lengthy reports, hold regular meetings, etc. So finding 10-15 people who are willing to devote so much time to that isn't easy. 2) Another thing is, I think, you don't want too many people on the committee that they can't easily jump on a call and deliberate, forge strong working relationships, and trust. So maybe 7-9 is a good middle ground? 3) I like the idea of adding a way for the House and Senate to call a referendum and boot someone from the committee in extraordinary circumstances. The downside there is that you'll tend to convulse the community and embroil in controversy. Maybe better to just wait for the term of the members to expire and then throw the bums out and elect new members? In that case, though, we should definitely find a way to allow proposals to be submitted multiple times, as Sal said in his comment here, perhaps with a waiting period in between, so as to account for changeover in the government/community over time. 4) I don't think we should put layer 2s on the judiciary (though of course the community can vote in whoever they want), as Salomon said as well - that'd be too great a conflict of interest. Essentially, they'd be asked to vote on funding or not funding their competition. Moreover, layer 2s aren't necessarily only building on XDC; their highest loyalty is ultimately to themselves, however much it may overlap with the good of the network overall. 5) Finally, and this is key, the judiciary IS an anti-majoritarian element here, like the Supreme Court, it's a check on the excesses and dangers of populism. Key to remember here that the judiciary, while powerful, cannot simply ram through funding approvals by itself - it absolutely needs the support of the other branches. The worst a corrupt judiciary could ever do is block proposals that don't have overwhelming community support - they couldn't seize the treasury, and that's the main thing we want to prevent. Again, great points and I'm going to take them all under consideration.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
Good stuff. 1) I do think it might make sense to add a couple more judiciary members. One downside there is that being on the judiciary is actually going to require quite a lot of work - you can't just show up and vote; you have to write numerous, lengthy reports, hold regular meetings, etc. So finding 10-15 people who are willing to devote so much time to that isn't easy. 2) Another thing is, I think, you don't want too many people on the committee that they can't easily jump on a call and deliberate, forge strong working relationships, and trust. So maybe 7-9 is a good middle ground? 3) I like the idea of adding a way for the House and Senate to call a referendum and boot someone from the committee in extraordinary circumstances. The downside there is that you'll tend to convulse the community and embroil in controversy. Maybe better to just wait for the term of the members to expire and then throw the bums out and elect new members? In that case, though, we should definitely find a way to allow proposals to be submitted multiple times, as Sal said in his comment here, perhaps with a waiting period in between, so as to account for changeover in the government/community over time. 4) I don't think we should put layer 2s on the judiciary (though of course the community can vote in whoever they want), as Salomon said as well - that'd be too great a conflict of interest. Essentially, they'd be asked to vote on funding or not funding their competition. Moreover, layer 2s aren't necessarily only building on XDC; their highest loyalty is ultimately to themselves, however much it may overlap with the good of the network overall. 5) Finally, and this is key, the judiciary IS an anti-majoritarian element here, like the Supreme Court, it's a check on the excesses and dangers of populism. Key to remember here that the judiciary, while powerful, cannot simply ram through funding approvals by itself - it absolutely needs the support of the other branches. The worst a corrupt judiciary could ever do is block proposals that don't have overwhelming community support - they couldn't seize the treasury, and that's the main thing we want to prevent. Again, great points and I'm going to take them all under consideration.