{
  "@context": {
    "CIP100": "https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/blob/master/CIP-0100/README.md#",
    "hashAlgorithm": "CIP100:hashAlgorithm",
    "body": {
      "@id": "CIP100:body",
      "@context": {
        "references": {
          "@id": "CIP100:references",
          "@container": "@set",
          "@context": {
            "GovernanceMetadata": "CIP100:GovernanceMetadataReference",
            "Other": "CIP100:OtherReference",
            "label": "CIP100:reference-label",
            "uri": "CIP100:reference-uri",
            "referenceHash": {
              "@id": "CIP100:referenceHash",
              "@context": {
                "hashDigest": "CIP100:hashDigest",
                "hashAlgorithm": "CIP100:hashAlgorithm"
              }
            }
          }
        },
        "comment": "CIP100:comment",
        "externalUpdates": {
          "@id": "CIP100:externalUpdates",
          "@context": {
            "title": "CIP100:update-title",
            "uri": "CIP100:uri"
          }
        }
      }
    },
    "authors": {
      "@id": "CIP100:authors",
      "@container": "@set",
      "@context": {
        "name": "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name",
        "witness": {
          "@id": "CIP100:witness",
          "@context": {
            "witnessAlgorithm": "CIP100:witnessAlgorithm",
            "publicKey": "CIP100:publicKey",
            "signature": "CIP100:signature"
          }
        }
      }
    }
  },
  "authors": [],
  "body": {
    "comment": "I vote YES on the protocol parameter update action “Reduce the committeeMinSize parameter from 7 to 5” (c75bb221606687aa858ec89c7a15c88e9c17054f2e045ae31ecc8a9687cd206e#0).\n\nI reluctantly vote in favour of this action having witnessed the ecosystem reject an attempt to increase the number of Constitutional Committee (CC) members to 8 last year. Preference would have been to increase the number, while keeping the minimum at 7. However, no system can sustainably operate at the limit continuously. Operating with 7 members while the protocol minimum is 7 has left the Cardano governance system exposed to a level of fragility that it should never have been placed in in the first place. With an increasing number of individual member seats, as opposed to consortiums, the risk of one or more being unable to fulfil their duties at any point in time risks stalling the governance system. As we have seen play out following the retirement of a CC member in late 2025.\n\nVoting as a DRep, who is also a Civics Committee member, the timing of this (re)submission to Mainnet has been unfortunate. As the metadata highlights, this was approved by the Civics Committee on 2026-03-13. 84 days passed before reaching Mainnet submission.\n\nYes, careful coordination was required to prevent a repeat collision with another parameter update, as happened following the submission by a community member, and hindsight is a wonderful thing but over-cautiousness regarding the Plutus Cost Model update and the hard fork has resulted in some unfortunate timing. It was submitted during the CC election registration phase and made it appear as though this submission was a knee jerk reaction to low turnout numbers at the time. This was absolutely not the case. It was months in the making. Another impact of timing was that, had this been submitted sooner, it would have better informed the Intersect CC election process. Had the proposal failed, the process could have pivoted early enough to electing more than the minimum members. Not having this answer ahead of time hand tied the process into committing to the 4 minimum and now hoping that this proposal passes.\n\nAdditionally, the metadata put forth by the Civics Committee was largely changed by the Technical Steering Committee. The educational content and context as to why this was being resubmitted again was largely removed and focussed on the technicalities. Leading me to publish an explanation article on X here: https://x.com/HephyPool/status/2063399716084183367?s=20. Which at least one DRep has admitted actually helped inform their voting decision. Metadata should seek to educate and inform the community, not just focus on the technical. It would have cleared up many of the misconceptions and allowed DReps to vote more clearly.\n\nAll in all, I am voting YES. The idea has been discussed for long enough, received Civics and Technical Steering support, contains a reversion plan and uses the correct parameter name throughout. With that said, let’s increase the size of the CC in the future."
  },
  "hashAlgorithm": "blake2b-256"
}