The Intersect Constitutional Council votes the action to be Constitutional.
The proposal is an Info Action governance type. It is a proposal to name the next Cardano hard fork the “Plomin Hard Fork” in memory of Cardano community contributor Matthew Plomin.
The Intersect Constitutional Council has determined that the proposal meets the required standards defined in Article III section 6 of the Interim Constitution: it follows a standardized and legible format and provides an Abstract, Motivation, Rationale and Supporting Links.
Additionally, the proposal aligns with the Cardano Interim Constitution’s principles:
- Recognition of Contributions: The proposal honors a valued community member, aligning with Article II, Section 4, which encourages acknowledging contributions.
- Participatory Governance: The proposal provides clear justification, adhering to Article III, Section 6, which requires transparency and rationale for governance actions.
- Alignment with Principles: The name change does not compromise technical performance, security, or decentralization, respecting Article I tenets.
By fostering inclusivity and trust, this proposal reflects Cardano’s community-driven ethos and is therefore deemed constitutionally sound.
However, it is crucial to reiterate that this particular governance action was inspired by the recent passing of a beloved community member, and as such, it is emotionally charged with tremendous community sentiment. With this in mind, the Intersect Constitutional Council must emphasize that its role is to assess the constitutionality of a proposal and not the sentiment behind it.
While individual members rightly have their own personal feelings on the subject, this Council aims to remain impartial to the best of its abilities when assessing this Info Action.
Considering that the Chang hard fork was initially planned as a single event but divided into two phases for practical reasons, it is determined that the legacy of Chang was respected and honored. Furthermore, in keeping with the tradition of honoring prominent members of the Cardano community through the naming of hard forks, Matthew Plomin, as a distinguished member of the Cardano community, is appropriately recognized with such honors.
Should the community decide on this matter through an on-chain vote, it would mark the first instance in which the naming of a hard fork is determined in a decentralized manner.
Finally, it is worth highlighting the independence of this Council as the GA was proposed by the Intersect Hard Fork Working Group.
This council has set precedence with regards to Info Actions relating to the naming of hard forks after voting that the very first governance action, the Hosky hard fork Info Action, was constitutional. While this initial GA was the first of its kind and contained some errors, the current GA is an improvement and has been submitted free of any technical errors and, as previously mentioned, meets the standards laid out in Article III, section 6, Article II, Section 4, and the tenets of Article I.
Hard forks, development phases, and ledger eras on Cardano have traditionally been named with consent of the entities who held the genesis keys of the network. Two recent hard forks have been named in memory of Cardano Community members: Vasil Stoyanov Dabov and Phil Chang.
Additionally, it is imperative to note that the process for naming hard forks during participatory governance has not yet been established and no formal process has been decided upon. However, the Intersect Constitutional Council is mindful that we are establishing a precedent for the Cardano ecosystem and this could be the beginnings of a formalized process.
This Council has already established its own precedent regarding voting on Info Actions pertaining to the naming of hard forks, as the first mainnet governance action (15f82a365bdee483a4b03873a40d3829cc88c048ff3703e11bd01dd9e035c916#0) proposed naming the upcoming hard fork “Hosky.”
A majority of the Intersect Constitutional Council voted “Constitutional” in that instance, thus recognizing the authority of the Cardano community to take such an action through on-chain governance.
As previously outlined in the Council’s rationale counterargument discussion in the 15f82a365bdee483a4b03873a40d3829cc88c048ff3703e11bd01dd9e035c916#0 “Hosky” governance action, the same counter argument can be raised here for the Plomin Hard Fork proposal.
While this governance action is not “Unconstitutional” and therefore undeserving of a “No” vote by the Intersect Constitutional Council, it is reasonable to take the position that this GA is “non-constitutional” because it does not apply to the operations of the Cardano network.
The naming of hard forks is an informal practice that has generally been done by the developers for marketing purposes. There is no on-chain mechanism where the “name” matters, so there is nothing to consider regarding constitutionality. Era names are defined at the ledger level, with the most recent eras being “Babbage” and “Conway,” which have not followed the name of a hard fork since the Alonzo hard fork. Therefore, in this instance the choice of hard fork name does not affect the Cardano blockchain.
Based on this line of reasoning, it is possible that a non-vote would be a logical course of action. However, it may be prudent to actively vote “Abstain” to signal neutrality to the community.
The rationale given meets the minimum standards of the Interim Constitution for a rationale for an info action. The Intersect Council believes that the info action is Constitutional.
- Constitutional: 8
- Unconstitutional: 0
- Abstain: 2
- Did Not Vote: 0