Polkadot Ambassador Fellowship (PAF) Governance: Critical Questions Before On-Chain Implementation

[ltfschoen]

Summary

I’ve developed the Polkadot Ambassador Fellowship (PAF) Governance Extension Pallet that implements critical components of the PAF Manifesto, but I will not consider publishing it until foundational governance questions are addressed. Today’s tragic Optus emergency response failure in Australia, which allegedly resulted in 4 deaths, demonstrates why proper governance protocols are not optional, they are proven to save lives.

Background

I recently published the executive summary of my risk assessment identifying significant governance, legal, and privacy concerns with the proposed on-chain implementation of the PAF. While I only shared these concerns on September 18th, 2025, and understand that thoughtful responses take time, the urgency of addressing these foundational governance questions has been highlighted by recent events.

Note: My governance perspective is informed by practical experience as a solo delegate with delegated voting power from Web3 Foundation in Decentralized Voices (DV) Cohort II (2024) and as a participating member of JAM Implementers DAO in DV Cohort IV (2025).

The Optus Tragedy: Why Governance Matters

This governance risk assessment becomes even more critical when we consider real-world consequences of inadequate emergency response protocols.

In the news today there was a stark example in Australia where a planned Optus network outage reportedly killed 4 people (including an 8-week-old baby), demonstrating exactly why proper emergency response governance matters, especially in organizations with distributed governance like the PAF: Optus confirms fourth death after CEO reveals warnings of failed triple zero calls not escalated

Disclaimer: The Optus situation is still under investigation, and my deepest condolences go to those affected by this tragedy. I reference these events solely to illustrate the real-world importance of proper governance protocols.

Key reported failures in the Optus incident that mirror governance risks I’ve identified for the PAF:

• No escalation protocols: Two customers allegedly warned Optus about failed emergency calls, but “this information was not surfaced with the relevant escalation”

• No notification standards: Authorities allegedly weren’t informed until after the press conference approximately 13+ hours later

• No accountability framework: No formal process allegedly existed between telco and emergency services

• Coordination breakdown: Emergency call diversions to other carriers also allegedly failed

The parallel to potential risks in PAF governance that could be prevented:

• Emergency committee formation could prevent coordination breakdowns during crises

• Professional services verification ensures qualified responders are pre-registered

• Cross-program integration prevents the kind of system-wide failures we saw with Optus

• Evidence handling patterns create tamper-proof records of warnings and responses

• Appeals processes provide recourse when standard protocols fail

These reported coordination failures at Optus are alleged to have actually killed people. The PAF needs robust emergency response protocols before we face our own crisis. The PAF Governance Extension Pallet I’ve developed aims to provide tools that could help address similar coordination challenges, but as noted in the governance risk assessment, it requires proper foundational safeguards to prevent misuse and would need thorough auditing and testing before any critical implementation.

In light of the concerning admission from an Advisory Board member about the rank assignment process, implementing temporary linear voting power would serve as a critical precautionary measure. This would ensure that no single group has disproportionate control while we verify that ranks were established competently and with full understanding by those involved in the process.

Given the urgency highlighted by today’s tragedy, I am posting here in the Polkadot Forum to seek collaboration from the entire ecosystem to establish these foundational safeguards as soon as possible. The real-world stakes demonstrated by the Optus tragedy underscore why we cannot delay addressing these critical governance questions.

Evidence Handling: A Critical Governance Pattern

One key feature of the PAF Governance Extension Pallet is its evidence handling pattern, which stores only evidence hashes on-chain, maintains actual evidence off-chain in external storage systems, includes references to off-chain evidence locations in human-readable parameters, and creates verifiable links between on-chain actions and their supporting evidence.

This pattern is crucial for governance decisions as it balances transparency with storage efficiency while ensuring all actions have proper documentation and auditability.

Required Governance Foundations

I’m requesting a clear commitment from the PAF to:

1. Address the critical governance questions outlined in this post before going on-chain

2. Implement proper foundational safeguards that protect members and the ecosystem

3. Establish transparent processes for all governance actions

4. Create accountability mechanisms for emergency response scenarios

5. Develop a balanced governance structure that prevents power concentration

These requests are not just about principles, they are practical necessities for a functioning governance system that can withstand real-world challenges.

Conditions for PAF Governance Extension Pallet Publication

Given the urgency of these governance questions and the real-world consequences of allegedly inadequate governance protocols demonstrated by today’s events, I am establishing the following conditions:

1. I will not consider publishing the PAF Governance Extension Pallet until the following prerequisites are met:

• Comprehensive Privacy Policy for the PAF is established

• Robust Terms of Use for the PAF is established with clear limitations on emergency powers

• Commitment to align the PAF’s legal structure with the broader Polkadot DAO framework, with a concrete plan and timeline

• More balanced PAF power distribution that addresses the centralization risks of the current geometric voting distribution (0-21 votes)

• Transparent rank transition with objective criteria

• Reevaluation of previously assigned PAF ranks through a transparent process, given that an Advisory Board member admitted: “I had no real idea to what I agreed upfront and found it confusing all the time… At some point there was also the discussion about which members should be which rank and whatever. Way too much what I could handle, especially for people I did not knew.” They even suggested a different approach where “5-6 head ambassadors are being elected and they will then do the initial seeding with other members.”

2. I will withdraw from the PAF if these foundational governance questions are not adequately addressed before the on-chain implementation or if I don’t see meaningful commitments to address these critical questions.

3. I will oppose any OpenGov referendum to implement the current PAF design without meaningful efforts to establish these foundational governance safeguards.

Critical Governance Questions For Consideration

1. Privacy Policy: Does the PAF have a comprehensive Privacy Policy that addresses the full lifecycle of data handling for both members and non-members?

2. Terms of Use: Has the PAF established detailed Terms of Use that define acceptable behaviors, liability limitations, and dispute resolution?

3. Treasury Governance: What legal and financial controls will govern the PAF treasury to ensure proper management and regulatory compliance?

4. Legal Structure Alignment: How will the PAF’s approach to legal liability align with the broader Polkadot DAO framework, while addressing the unique risks associated with PAF activities like in-person events and public representation?

5. Centralization Mitigation: How will the implementation prevent power concentration in the PAF through the geometric voting distribution (0-21 votes) and unilateral powers granted to higher ranks?

6. Rank Transition Safeguards: What objective criteria and transparent processes will govern rank transitions for the PAF to prevent abuse or manipulation?

7. Emergency Response Protocols: What governance mechanisms will be established for handling PAF-specific emergencies such as governance attacks, reputation threats, or coordination with the Polkadot Technical Fellowship (PTF) on technical issues that affect the PAF operations?

8. Professional Services Framework: What standards and oversight will govern the registration and referral of professional service providers with the PAF to ensure transparency and prevent conflicts of interest?

9. Cross-Program Integration and Physical Safety: How will the PAF manage interactions with ecosystem programs that operate with different governance standards, particularly for in-person events? For example, how will liability and member safety be managed when collaborating with the Polkadot Meetups Bounty program, which lacks a code of conduct despite funding in-person events across multiple jurisdictions? This is particularly concerning given that previous audits of bounty programs failed to identify this critical gap or express any concern about its absence.

Path Forward

I remain committed to the success of the PAF and believe that addressing these governance questions would contribute to a more robust, balanced, and sustainable governance system.

It’s important to note that considering these governance questions now is not just about principles, it’s also a practical technical consideration. With on-chain implementation forecasted for this month, introducing the PAF Governance Extension Pallet after deployment could be substantially more difficult for reasons detailed in the risk assessment’s executive summary.

Based on my governance experience and concerns about proper safeguards, I feel I cannot in good conscience contribute to the PAF’s on-chain governance implementation without adequate governance protocols, especially when real-world examples like today’s Optus tragedy highlight the potential consequences of governance shortcomings.

I will pause my participation and withhold publishing the PAF Governance Extension Pallet until such time as adequate governance safeguards are implemented. I sincerely hope these issues can be addressed proactively rather than reactively.

Next Steps

The following are potential steps that could help address the identified governance risks, though the PAF community may identify other or better approaches:

Immediate Priorities (Highest Risk)

1. Formation of a PAF Governance Working Group with balanced representation (at least two members from each rank 1-4) to address the critical questions, since governance is everyone’s responsibility, not just higher ranks

2. Establishment of a transparent process for PAF rank reevaluation, especially given the Advisory Board member’s admission

3. Implementation of a more balanced power distribution that addresses the centralization risks of the current geometric voting distribution (0-21 votes) for the PAF

4. Development of a basic Privacy Policy for the PAF addressing the most urgent data handling concerns

Short-Term Priorities

1. Development of comprehensive Terms of Use for the PAF with clear limitations on emergency powers

2. Consultation with the Polkadot Legal Bounty that was executed in Polkadot Referendum #1359 for guidance on legal structure alignment for the PAF

3. Creation of detailed accountability mechanisms for the PAF for emergency response scenarios

I recognize that fully implementing all governance foundations may require time, but I need to see meaningful commitments to address these critical questions before the on-chain implementation. My continued participation depends on seeing these governance issues taken seriously.

I now invite the PAF community and the broader Polkadot ecosystem to consider these governance concerns and provide both responses to the critical questions and commitments to address the identified governance issues as replies to this forum thread.

---

Note: This post is not intended as legal or financial advice. Professional counsel should be sought for definitive guidance on these matters.

[Mork]

Set up the working group, starting with yourself.
Make it public and open for any ambassador to join, not just some ‘representative’ anointed 8 (which is certain to be challenged at a later date).
Solicit input on the group’s decisions while they are being made, not afterwards.
Submit decisions individually to the rest of the PAF for approval.

Done like that, I don’t see how anyone can have a problem with it.
NGL, feels like the bigger risk of failure is not getting enough people to participate, rather than the PAF failing to agree its conclusions.

[ltfschoen]

I appreciate your constructive suggestion for a path forward. An open working group that any ambassador can join, with transparent decision-making and individual approval of decisions, makes sense as an approach.

However, I’ve already invested substantial unpaid time developing the Polkadot Ambassador Fellowship (PAF) Governance Extension Pallet and conducting the risk assessment. As I’ve made clear in my post, my position is that I will not publish that pallet until these governance foundations are established, but that doesn’t mean I need to be the one leading that establishment process.

There’s a substantial pool of potential participants who could step up to form this working group, including ambassadors from both cohorts I and II, with 126 members including myself earmarked to go on-chain from cohort I, those who chose not to go on-chain, and even interested community members who care about proper governance. The contribution I’ve made has been trying to identify the critical governance questions that need addressing before on-chain implementation.

[HopeClary]

Please Consider this Discussion. https://x.com/Hopeioum/status/1971231756046172504

[edoga]

Boy, OP already has a lot of work on the table, and he has worked a lot on the pallet; you must not expect one person to do all the job; the request is far more than eloquent, understandable, and proactive.

This should be something for everyone to think about, review, and analyze previous iterations for the Ambassadors Program, and start a think tank within each cell of the Polkadot DAO.

On my side, I see a lot of potential in working on the subjects of the social, legal, and cultural operational requirements, which I’ll be considering through my daily developments for proposing ways, actions, or products that respond to the actual challenges of this palett, that could be the starkest operational and decentralized collective in all the ecosystem.

[edoga]

Thanks for the hard work. From my trench, I will have these requirements in mind to help shape the operational needs for this pallet to go live.

This is something to discuss and connect here on the forum, and Sub0 as well.

Just as a comment, this work could be done at max in 6 months if it’s possible to establish a working group, and that group focuses on “institutionalization” for the PAF.

[ltfschoen]

Following my previous post about critical governance questions for the Polkadot Ambassador Fellowship’s (PAF) on-chain implementation, I’ve developed this comprehensive proposal that addresses those concerns through specific governance commitments.

This document (Version 1.0.0 - Review Draft) outlines a structured approach to ensure proper governance safeguards are in place before and during the on-chain implementation process. It includes:

1. Specific governance commitments for ambassadors to vote on
2. Detailed implementation approach with clear timelines and responsibilities
3. Framework for independent technical documentation and security review
4. Comprehensive accountability mechanisms and transparency requirements

The proposal allows the current PAF implementation to proceed on-chain with core functionality while temporarily excluding the PAF extension pallet until these governance commitments are fulfilled. This balanced approach addresses the potentially critical security and accountability concerns I raised while minimising further delays to the on-chain implementation.

I’m sharing this as a Review Draft to gather community feedback before finalisation. Any input from the broader Polkadot ecosystem is valuable in ensuring these governance commitments effectively address the concerns raised and provide a solid foundation for the PAF’s on-chain future.

Below is the full document and I look forward to your thoughts and suggestions.

Polkadot Ambassador Fellowship: Governance Commitments and Implementation Plan

Reference ID: PAF-GOV-2025-09
Version: 1.0.0 (Review Draft)
Last Updated: 2025-09-26

Executive Summary

This proposal requests votes from all Ambassadors on key governance commitments for the Polkadot Ambassador Fellowship’s (PAF) on-chain implementation. Following the previous vote where most Ambassadors supported going on-chain, these commitments aim to:

1. Allow the current PAF implementation to proceed on-chain with core functionality
2. Temporarily exclude the PAF extension pallet until governance commitments are fulfilled
3. Strengthen governance readiness and address potential security concerns
4. Increase likelihood of referendum approval through responsible planning

If approved, these commitments will be incorporated into the Ambassador Fellowship on-chain proposal following the detailed implementation approach outlined in Appendix F, including specific timelines, working group formation, and pre-deployment requirements to ensure all governance safeguards are properly established.

Table of Contents

• Purpose
• Value Proposition and Critical Necessity
  • Why Governance Commitments Matter
  • Tangible Benefits to the Polkadot Ecosystem
  • Alignment with Polkadot Ecosystem Values
• Voting Approach
• Governance Commitments for Vote
• Vote Verification
• Post-Vote Commitments Incorporation
• Relationship Between Commitments and Appendices
• Disclaimer
• Appendix A: Addressing Common Misconceptions
• Appendix B: Collaborative Implementation Approach
• Appendix C: Implementation Responsibilities
• Appendix D: Preventing Governance Capture
• Appendix E: Critical Governance Questions
• Appendix F: Post-Vote Commitments Approach

Purpose

This discussion post proposes to request votes from all Ambassadors on key governance commitments for the on-chain implementation of the Polkadot Ambassador Fellowship (PAF), following the previous vote where most voting Ambassadors supported going on-chain. The goal is to allow the current PAF implementation to proceed on-chain with the core functionality, while temporarily excluding the PAF extension pallet (Polkadot Ambassador Fellowship Governance Extension Pallet) mentioned here Polkadot Ambassador Fellowship Governance Extension Pallet Grant Application by ltfschoen · Pull Request #37 · PolkadotOpenSourceGrants/apply · GitHub (that was withdrawn from that grant funding request) until these governance commitments are fulfilled. These commitments aim to strengthen our governance readiness, address potentially critical security and accountability concerns, and increase the likelihood of referendum approval by demonstrating responsible governance planning.

If approved, these commitments will be incorporated into the Ambassador Fellowship on-chain proposal following the detailed post-vote commitment approach outlined in Appendix F. This approach includes specific implementation timelines, working group formation, and pre-deployment requirements to ensure all governance safeguards are properly established.

Value Proposition and Critical Necessity

Why Governance Commitments Matter

These governance commitments establish important safeguards for the Ambassador Fellowship’s on-chain implementation. They address specific concerns that have been identified through technical review and community feedback:

• Identified Technical Issues: Security reviews conducted by the author of the PAF extension pallet (August 2025) uncovered potential implementation concerns including potential treasury transaction batching inconsistencies and potential member limit discrepancies. These potential issues were submitted to the Parity Bug Bounty program but rejected due to Ambassador Fellowship involvement. This creates a concerning dilemma: contributors must choose between participating in ecosystem collectives or maintaining bug bounty eligibility. This led to the author’s recusal from reviewing the proposed PAF implementation, as any review comments could be considered a conflict of interest under the same policy. This creates misaligned incentives where those with the most relevant expertise may be discouraged from contributing directly to the projects they know best.
• Governance Structure Safeguards: Without appropriate checks and balances, on-chain governance systems can concentrate decision-making power in ways that undermine decentralization principles
• Treasury Controls: Lack of transparent fiscal controls and appropriate rate structures could lead to inefficient use of ecosystem resources, as seen in other treasury proposals
• Accountability Mechanisms: Clear documentation practices, responsibility assignments, and transparency requirements are needed to ensure proper governance
• Implementation Sequence: A structured approach to implementation ensures critical safeguards are in place before vulnerable functionality is activated
• Delegation Chain Transparency: The Ambassador Fellowship Commitment Checklist requires full transparency, pre-vote disclosure, shared accountability, and comprehensive conflict of interest evaluation across all delegation chains, with no absolution of responsibility for the original delegate.

Tangible Benefits to the Polkadot Ecosystem

Implementing these commitments will deliver substantial value to the entire Polkadot ecosystem:

• Enhanced Security: Comprehensive security review process with qualified experts reduces risk of exploits
• Fiscal Responsibility: Transparent, market-appropriate compensation rates and treasury caps ensure efficient use of community funds
• Governance Innovation: Establishes best practices that can be adopted by other ecosystem projects
• Community Trust: Demonstrates commitment to transparent, accountable governance
• Reduced Implementation Risk: Phased approach with clear safeguards minimizes potential negative impacts
• Knowledge Transfer: Documentation practices ensure learnings benefit the broader ecosystem
• Sustainable Growth: Balanced approach allows progress while ensuring proper governance foundations

Alignment with Polkadot Ecosystem Values

This implementation plan embodies core Polkadot ecosystem values:

• Decentralization: Distributes responsibilities across multiple working groups with balanced representation
• Transparency: On-chain documentation and clear decision-making processes
• Security: Prioritizes proactive security reviews and risk assessments before deployment rather than reactive fixes after vulnerabilities are exploited, focusing on identifying and addressing potential issues in advance
• Community-Driven: Incorporates broad ambassador involvement and feedback mechanisms
• Fiscal Prudence: Reasonable compensation rates and transparent budgeting
• Technical Excellence: Follows Technical Fellowship review processes and standards

Voting Approach

The following is a proposed process for gathering ambassador feedback on these governance commitments:

1. Discussion Period: A 5-day period from publication (Block #XXXXXX to Block #XXXXXX)

• Open to comments from the broader Polkadot ecosystem, not just ambassadors
• Ambassadors are encouraged to consider feedback from ecosystem stakeholders
• Incorporating broader ecosystem perspectives may improve the eventual on-chain proposal

2. Voting Period: A 3-day period following discussion (Block #XXXXXX to Block #XXXXXX)
3. Eligible Participants: Verified Ambassador accounts
4. Voting Format Suggested: On-chain remarks based on the following example:

PAF-GOV-2025-09: Y(reason),N(reason),A(reason),Y(reason),N(reason),Y(reason)

Where:

• Y(reason) = Yes with optional reason in parentheses
• N(reason) = No with reason in parentheses (strongly encouraged for transparency and accountability)
• A(reason) = Abstain with reason in parentheses
• Each position corresponds to commitments 1-6 in order
• Providing reasons, especially for No and Abstain votes, helps improve governance transparency

Note: This accelerated timeline is specifically designed to minimize further delays to the Ambassador Fellowship’s on-chain implementation in a scheduled runtime upgrade, while still ensuring adequate time for community input and ambassador consideration.

Governance Commitments for Vote

Following the previous vote where most ambassadors supported going on-chain, this vote seeks to establish specific governance commitments before proceeding with implementation. It proposes that all verified ambassadors would be eligible to vote, regardless of how they voted in the previous on-chain transition poll. Their vote on each commitment should help determine which safeguards are prioritized during implementation.

#	Commitment	Description	Vote (Y/N/A)
1	Security Review Process	Implement a comprehensive security review process led by qualified security experts (preferably Polkadot Assurance Legion (PAL) or suitable equivalent security audit providers) with appropriate Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) and conflict of interest screening
2	Treasury Caps	Implement temporary treasury caps during initial implementation to reduce risk while governance safeguards are being established
3	Governance Safeguards Timeline	Commit to implementing critical governance safeguards before deployment and completing all safeguards within 90 days of on-chain approval
4	Technical Fellowship Involvement	Ensure Technical Fellowship review and approval of implementation approach through the formal RFC process
5	Dual-Use Risk Assessment	Conduct a formal assessment of potential dual-use risks (where governance mechanisms could be repurposed for harmful or malicious uses beyond their intended purpose) with appropriate mitigation strategies
6	Rank Reevaluation Process	Establish a transparent community-driven process to reevaluate ambassador ranks that were initially assigned by the Advisory Board

The following diagram illustrates the Decision Flow for Vulnerable Functionality:

Vote Verification

1. All votes must be submitted as on-chain remarks from verified Ambassador accounts on the Polkadot Relay Chain (using the standard Polkadot SDK System pallet’s remark extrinsic, which is accessible through any Polkadot wallet)
2. Only votes within the specified block range will be counted
3. A verification script should be published for independent vote tallying (this script should scan the blockchain for remarks matching the specified reference number and format from verified ambassador accounts within the block range, count the votes for each option, and generate a cryptographically verifiable report)
4. Results should be published in the Polkadot Forum post thread with links to on-chain evidence

Post-Vote Commitments Incorporation

If approved, these commitments will be incorporated into the Ambassador Fellowship on-chain proposal. The commitments create a balanced approach that allows progress while ensuring proper governance safeguards. For a detailed implementation timeline and approach, see Appendix F: Post-Vote Commitments Approach.

Relationship Between Commitments and Appendices

The governance commitments listed above represent the high-level principles that ambassadors are being asked to vote on. The detailed appendices that follow provide comprehensive implementation plans, working group structures, responsibility assignments, and supporting information for each commitment:

• Commitment 1 (Security Review Process) is detailed in Appendix C (Implementation Responsibilities)
• Commitment 2 (Treasury Caps) is elaborated in Appendix B (Collaborative Implementation) and Appendix F (Post-Vote Commitments Approach)
• Commitment 3 (Governance Safeguards Timeline) is outlined in Appendix F (Post-Vote Commitments Approach)
• Commitment 4 (Technical Fellowship Involvement) is explained in Appendix B and Appendix C
• Commitment 5 (Dual-Use Risk Assessment) is addressed in Appendix E (Critical Governance Questions)
• Commitment 6 (Rank Reevaluation Process) is covered in Appendix B under the working group responsibilities

The appendices provide the technical details, timelines, specific responsibilities, and budget information needed to implement these commitments effectively. Appendix B includes a detailed budget with rank-based hourly rates ($40-$100/hour based on expertise level) and transparent cost estimates for each working group. This budget follows the principle of fiscal responsibility, with reasonable market-appropriate rates and clear justification for all expenses. The appendices represent the operational and financial plan that will be followed if ambassadors vote to approve these governance commitments.

For a comprehensive understanding of these governance commitments, each appendix provides important context:

• Appendix A: Addresses common misconceptions about the PAF extension pallet
• Appendix B: Outlines a collaborative implementation approach with working group formation
• Appendix C: Details implementation responsibilities including security review process
• Appendix D: Explains how the PAF extension pallet helps prevent governance capture
• Appendix E: Lists critical governance questions that must be resolved before implementation
• Appendix F: Provides a detailed post-vote commitments approach with pre-deployment requirements and priorities

These appendices provide important context for your voting decision and address concerns raised in previous community discussions.

Disclaimer

Risk Assessment Limitations

• The reference to a “safety in design” risk assessment is aspirational only and represents an approach to strive towards
• No formal “safety in design” methodology was fully followed, nor has a Web3-specific equivalent been created yet
• The risk assessment that informed the PAF extension pallet should not be considered exhaustive
• It represents a selective focus on risks that the author personally identified as important based on individual experience and judgment
• What is described as “critical” reflects the author’s interpretation and prioritization, which may differ from the assessment of qualified security experts

Not Professional Advice

• This document does not constitute professional security, legal, or governance advice
• All governance safeguards should be independently verified and validated by appropriate security professionals

Responsibility for Implementation

• The Ambassador Fellowship, the broader Polkadot ecosystem (including all collectives, the Polkadot DAO, and Web3 Foundation), and all contributors bear responsibility for conducting their own comprehensive risk assessments with qualified experts before implementation
• The author has attempted to reduce risks to As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) given resource constraints
• No guarantees are made about the completeness or effectiveness of the proposed safeguards

Note on Appendices: Due to character limits, the detailed appendices for this proposal are provided in two reply posts below:

• Reply #1: Appendices A-E (Common Misconceptions, Collaborative Implementation, Implementation Responsibilities, Preventing Governance Capture, Critical Governance Questions)
• Reply #2: Appendix F (Post-Vote Commitments Approach with Implementation Timeline)

Please review these appendices for important implementation details that support the governance commitments outlined above.

[ltfschoen]

Appendices A-E

This is a continuation of the main proposal post above. Please read the main post first for context.

These appendices provide detailed implementation plans, working group structures, responsibility assignments, and supporting information for the governance commitments outlined in the main proposal.

Appendix A: Addressing Common Misconceptions

Based on discussions from the Polkadot Forum post and a subsequent community discussion on X kindly hosted by Hope Clary, several misconceptions about the PAF extension pallet should be clarified:

1. Scope: The PAF extension pallet is not attempting to solve all governance problems at once or make the Ambassador Fellowship “purely” on-chain. It contains approximately 15 targeted extrinsics and 20 events designed to address specific governance risks identified through experience with the program.

2. Hybrid Approach: The proposal represents a hybrid on-chain/off-chain approach, not a complete decentralization of all Ambassador functions. It focuses on implementing critical governance safeguards while maintaining operational flexibility.

3. Risk Mitigation: The PAF extension pallet was developed with inspiration from “safety in design” principles, but as noted in the disclaimer, no formal methodology was fully followed nor has a Web3-specific equivalent been created yet. The approach focused on addressing governance risks that were personally identified as important based on experience with the program.

4. Technical Readiness: The code has been iteratively tested and refactored, but requires proper security review under NDA due to potential dual-use concerns.

5. Practical Experience: The design is informed by both technical experience (parachain deployment, Parity work) and governance experience (project design management, risk workshop facilitation).

The governance commitments being voted on represent practical steps to ensure responsible implementation rather than barriers to progress.

Appendix B: Collaborative Implementation Approach

As noted by community members in the forum discussion, implementing these governance safeguards should be a collaborative effort rather than the responsibility of a single individual. The following structured approach distributes responsibility appropriately while ensuring comprehensive implementation of governance safeguards:

1. Working Group Structure and Composition:

   • Common Accountability Standards for All Working Groups:

     • Formal commitment to specific deliverables and time allocation
     • Clear performance metrics with monthly review
     • Replacement mechanism if participation falls below 75% of scheduled meetings
     • Public commitment to the PAF governance principles
     • Membership primarily from ambassadors who voted to support on-chain implementation
     • Inclusion of some representatives who had concerns or voted against on-chain implementation to ensure diverse perspectives

   • Working Group Member Selection Process:

     • Transparent application and evaluation process open to all verified ambassadors
     • Selection criteria based on:
       • Relevant technical/governance/communication expertise for the specific working group
       • Demonstrated commitment to the Polkadot ecosystem
       • Previous contributions to ambassador governance discussions
       • Ability to commit required time over the implementation period
       • Balance of perspectives (including representation from those with concerns)
     • Selection committee composed of 3 ambassadors elected by the collective
     • Public evaluation rubric with scoring for each criterion
     • All applications and evaluations published for transparency
     • Appeals process for rejected applications
     • Commitment Checklist: The Ambassador Fellowship Commitment Checklist (v0.2) mentioned here Transition to the On-Chain Collective: Next Steps for the Ambassador Fellowship - #9 by ltfschoen will be finalized with inputs from the ambassador fellowship and community, then used to evaluate and score each contributor throughout the implementation process, providing feedback for continuous improvement
     • Responsible: Ambassador Fellowship Coordinator to organize election of selection committee

   • PAF Governance Working Group: Core coordinating body (5-7 members)

     • Includes the Ambassador Fellowship Coordinator (elected position)
     • Responsible for overall coordination and integration of all governance work
     • Maximum size: 7 members to ensure efficient decision-making

   • PAF Technical Working Group: Technical implementation specialists (3-5 members)

     • Composed of technically skilled ambassadors
     • May include 1-2 advisors from Technical Fellowship (non-voting) with:
       • Additional requirement: Explicit acknowledgment of advisory responsibilities in Technical Fellowship meeting minutes
     • Responsible for code review, technical documentation, and security coordination
     • Maximum size: 5 members focused on technical implementation

   • PAF Communications Working Group: Community engagement specialists (3-5 members)

     • Responsible for facilitating community discussions and feedback collection
     • Manages documentation of community input and publication of updates
     • Maximum size: 5 members focused on communication and documentation

   • PAF Treasury Management Working Group: Resource allocation specialists (3 members)

     • Responsible for budget planning and resource allocation
     • Coordinates with PAL and other security providers on funding arrangements
     • Maximum size: 3 members with treasury management experience

   • PAF Values Assurance Working Group: Values alignment specialists (3-5 members)

     • Responsible for evaluating alignment with ambassador values and providing constructive feedback
     • Conducts random audits using the Commitment Checklist as a standard
     • Manages the witness-based verification system for Alignment Scores
     • Provides mentorship during remediation periods
     • Coordinates the recognition program for exemplary values demonstration:
       • On-chain NFT badges, public recognition, and priority consideration for future governance roles
       • Sponsorship Program:
         • Funding sources: ecosystem parachains, aligned Web3 companies, and community micro-donations
         • Transparent sponsorship guidelines to prevent conflicts of interest
         • All sponsors publicly acknowledged with clear separation between sponsorship and governance
       • All recognition activities to be funded through future sponsorships and community contributions once initial treasury funding is established (no additional treasury funding beyond the initial proposal)
     • Responsible: PAF Values Assurance Working Group with support from PAF Communications Working Group

2. Timeline Estimation:

   • Target implementation: 3 months with focused effort and adequate resources
   • Commitment timeline: All safeguards completed within 90 days of on-chain approval as specified in the Governance Safeguards Timeline commitment
   • Contingency planning: Additional 3 months reserved only for unforeseen circumstances (security review delays, technical challenges, or governance process requirements) that would require formal extension approval
   • Critical safeguards: Prioritized for implementation within first 30 days as specified in the Governance Safeguards Timeline commitment
   • Key Milestone: Finalization of the Ambassador Fellowship Commitment Checklist (v0.2) with community input within the first 30 days, to be used for ongoing contributor evaluation and continuous improvement
   • Responsible: Ambassador Fellowship Coordinator to organize election of selection committee

3. Cross-Functional Expertise: Include members with diverse backgrounds covering technical, legal, social, and cultural operational requirements

4. Community Discussion Venues: Continue discussions in appropriate forums including Polkadot Forum and Sub0 Argentina events

5. Cross-Collective Approach: Encourage each collective in the Polkadot ecosystem to analyze requirements from their unique perspective and expertise

6. Critical Governance Questions Responsibilities:

   • Emergency Response Protocols: PAF Governance Working Group with input from Security Experts
   • Accountability Mechanisms: PAF Governance Working Group with PAF Technical Working Group
   • Privacy and Legal Framework: PAF Communications Working Group with legal advisors
   • Balanced Power Distribution: PAF Technical Working Group with PAF Governance Working Group
   • Dual-Use Risk Management: PAF Technical Working Group with Security Experts

7. Key Deliverables Responsibilities:

   • Comprehensive Documentation:
     • Responsible: PAF Communications Working Group with input from all groups
   • Manifesto Amendments:
     • Responsible: PAF Governance Working Group with input from independent technical experts
   • Accountability Mechanisms:
     • Responsible: PAF Governance Working Group with PAF Technical Working Group
   • Terms of Use Updates:
     • Responsible: PAF Communications Working Group with legal advisors
   • Technical Fellowship RFC:
     • Responsible: PAF Technical Working Group with independent technical experts
   • WFC Preparation:
     • Responsible: PAF Governance Working Group with PAF Communications Working Group
   • Pallet Functionality Control:
     • Responsible: Technical Fellowship via Root track governance

8. Estimated Time Commitments and Rank-Based Rates:

   • Rank-Based Hourly Rates (aligned with Technical Fellowship structure):

     • Rank I: $40/hour
     • Rank II: $60/hour
     • Rank III: $80/hour
     • Rank IV: $100/hour
     • Note: Working groups will include members from multiple ranks based on expertise requirements

   • PAF Governance Working Group Members:

     • All Phases: 4-8 hours per week (compensation based on rank)
     • Total Estimated Cost varies by rank and will be calculated based on actual working group composition
     • Key Milestones: Working group formation, security review coordination, accountability mechanism design

   • PAF Technical Working Group Members:

     • All Phases: 4-8 hours per week (compensation based on rank)
     • Total Estimated Cost varies by rank and will be calculated based on actual working group composition
     • Key Milestones: Security review preparation, technical documentation, RFC preparation

   • PAF Communications Working Group Members:

     • All Phases: 4-8 hours per week (compensation based on rank)
     • Total Estimated Cost varies by rank and will be calculated based on actual working group composition
     • Key Milestones: Documentation preparation, community feedback collection, Terms of Use updates

   • PAF Treasury Management Working Group Members:

     • All Phases: 4-8 hours per week (compensation based on rank)
     • Total Estimated Cost varies by rank and will be calculated based on actual working group composition
     • Key Milestones: Resource planning, security audit funding coordination

   • Independent Technical Documentation:

     • The PAF Technical Working Group will engage independent technical experts not affiliated with the Ambassador Fellowship to:
       • Document the original design decisions and implementation details of the PAF extension pallet
       • Provide technical guidance on implementation requirements
       • Support the Technical Fellowship RFC process
       • Deliver key milestones including manifesto amendments, technical documentation, RFC preparation, and security review support
       • Establish a formal knowledge transfer process with comprehensive documentation of design decisions and implementation details
     • Initial Knowledge Transfer: The original PAF extension pallet author will provide the existing PAF extension pallet code and proposed manifesto annexes under NDA as a one-time necessary involvement, with these materials being subject to an open-source share-alike license requiring proper attribution, treated as legacy documents that may be updated by independent technical experts, and only after security review clearance, published with appropriate attribution to serve as reference materials for the proposal.
     • Note: These independent technical experts will work under appropriate NDAs with PAF Governance Working Group approval, ensuring all necessary work is completed while respecting the conflict of interest constraints
     • Note: Beyond this initial knowledge transfer, the original PAF extension pallet author will not be involved in any aspect of the implementation, review, or documentation process due to the conflict of interest that arises from being an ambassador while reviewing ambassador fellowship related collective code, as highlighted by the Parity Bug Bounty team’s determination. This approach acknowledges the general principle that individuals with formal affiliations to a collective should not be involved in security review of that collective’s code, ensuring independent assessment.
     • Note: With these governance commitments in place, the original author can continue active participation in the Ambassador Fellowship without needing to pause membership, as previously considered. The governance safeguards outlined in this document proactively address the concerns that led to the author’s statement: “I will pause my participation and withhold publishing the PAF Governance Extension Pallet until such time as adequate governance safeguards are implemented.”
     • The following Security Review Process diagram illustrates the separation between the original author and the implementation/review process:

• Final Implementation Report and Knowledge Transfer:

  • Preparation Period: 30 days after implementation completion
  • Estimated Hours: 80-120 hours total across working group members
  • Budget Allocation: $5,600-$8,400 (based on average rate of $70/hour)
  • Key Deliverables: Comprehensive documentation, lessons learned, formal presentation materials, educational resources
  • Responsible: Collaborative effort between PAF Communications Working Group and Polkadot Blockchain Academy (PBA) representatives
  • PBA Integration: Report will be formatted as a formal case study for inclusion in future PBA cohort curriculum
  • Rate Justification: Unlike other implementation work which uses rank-based rates, the final report uses a standard average rate ($70/hour) because:
    • Documentation work doesn’t involve the same security risks as implementation
    • Knowledge sharing is a standard expectation for treasury-funded work
    • Comparable ecosystem research grants use similar or lower rates
    • This approach demonstrates fiscal responsibility and efficient use of treasury funds
  • Note: This budget is included in the core implementation budget and does not require additional funding

• Budget Summary:

  • Initial Phase (3 Months):
    • Note: Actual budget will depend on the rank composition of working groups
    • Estimated Range: $25,000-$50,000 (based on expected working group composition across ranks and standardized 4-8 hour work week)
    • Final Report: $5,600-$8,400 (based on average rate of $70/hour)
    • Total Initial Phase: $30,600-$58,400
  • Contingency Phase (If Required, Additional 3 Months):
    • Minimum: $25,000 (based on minimum working group sizes and minimum hours)
    • Maximum: $50,000 (based on maximum working group sizes and maximum hours)
    • Requires formal extension approval with justification
    • Subject to monthly progress reporting and review
    • Only released in monthly increments based on demonstrated progress
  • Note: These estimates are based on a rank-based rate structure inspired by the Technical Fellowship model. While actual Technical Fellowship salaries in RFC-0050 RFCs/text/0050-fellowship-salaries.md at 85ca3ff275ded2e690c4c175d5333d12b139d863 · polkadot-fellows/RFCs · GitHub are higher, we’re using a similar structure with rates from $40/hour (Rank I) to $100/hour (Rank IV) that correspond to expertise level and responsibilities
  • Rate Justification: While ambassador work typically follows operational rates, this implementation requires Technical Fellowship-equivalent compensation due to:
    • Emergency-level risk management addressing potentially critical security and governance vulnerabilities
    • Heightened accountability with direct impact on network security and treasury safety
    • Specialized expertise in governance design, security assessment, and technical implementation
    • Compressed timeline requiring intensive focus and rapid delivery
    • Potential reputational and financial consequences of implementation failures
    • Alignment with the high standards expected for protocol-level governance work
  • Note: These estimates do not include security audit costs, which would be covered separately through PAL funding that was approved by Polkadot OpenGov Referendum #1640 Polkassembly - Referendum #1640

9. Funding Mechanism:
   • OpenGov Treasury Proposal:
     • Following approval of governance commitments, a formal OpenGov treasury proposal should be submitted
     • Proposal should request funding for the core 3-month implementation budget
     • Contingency budget should be requested only if needed through a separate proposal
     • Treasury proposal should include detailed milestones and deliverables for each phase
     • Responsible: PAF Treasury Management Working Group with support from the Ambassador Fellowship Coordinator
   • Funding Release Schedule:
     • Initial funding released upon proposal approval
     • Subsequent funding released monthly based on progress reports
     • Final payment contingent on completion of all deliverables
     • Responsible: PAF Treasury Management Working Group for reporting and disbursement tracking
   • Contingency Fund Accountability:
     • Detailed weekly timesheets required from all working group members if contingency funds are utilized
     • Timesheets should include specific tasks performed, hours worked, and progress toward deliverables
     • Unused contingency funds must be returned to the treasury upon project completion
     • Independent audit of contingency fund usage upon completion of the implementation (funded from core implementation budget)
     • Public reporting of all contingency fund expenditures with justification
     • Responsible: PAF Treasury Management Working Group for tracking and PAF Governance Working Group for approval

Appendix C: Implementation Responsibilities

The following diagram illustrates the Governance Structure Diagram:

To clarify specific responsibilities raised in community discussions:

1. Approaching Qualified Security Experts:

   • The Ambassador Fellowship as a collective should formally approach qualified security experts (preferably Polkadot Assurance Legion (PAL) or suitable equivalent security audit providers), not any single individual
   • PAL was selected due to their established position within the Polkadot ecosystem and expertise in security audits
   • PAL recently received a 500,000 DOT top-up through Polkadot OpenGov Referendum #1640 Polkassembly - Referendum #1640 (executed June 2025) to fund security initiatives across the ecosystem
   • Since the Ambassador Fellowship doesn’t yet have its own treasury, funding for this security work could potentially be included in PAL’s existing mandate for ecosystem security
   • This would occur after the vote confirms community support for the security review process
   • The approach would be made through official channels with proper documentation of requirements

2. Timeline for Security Expert Engagement:

   • Target for initial contact: Within 7 days of vote approval (allowing 7-day contingency buffer)
     • Responsible: Ambassador Fellowship Coordinator with support from PAF Technical Working Group
   • Target for requirements documentation:
     • Preparation: Within 5 days of vote approval
       • Responsible: PAF Technical Working Group with input from Security Experts
     • Community review: 7-day period following preparation
       • Responsible: All Ambassadors (facilitated by PAF Communications Working Group)
     • Collective approval: Within 14 days of vote approval
       • Responsible: Ambassador Fellowship Collective Vote
     • This phased approach allows for 14-day contingency buffer before on-chain implementation
   • Target for formal engagement: Within 30 days of vote approval, with contingency extending to 45 days if needed due to expert availability
     • Responsible: Ambassador Fellowship Coordinator and PAF Treasury Management Working Group
   • These targets are designed to ensure security experts are engaged before on-chain implementation while allowing for reasonable contingency if delays occur

This structured approach ensures proper institutional engagement rather than placing responsibility on individual contributors, aligning with the collaborative governance model outlined in Appendix B.

Appendix D: Governance Capture Prevention

While institutionalizing the Ambassador Fellowship (formalizing it as an on-chain entity with codified structure and governance integration) is an important step, it’s critical to recognize that institutionalization alone does not prevent governance capture. This is a primary reason why the PAF extension pallet was developed:

1. Technical Safeguards: The PAF extension pallet implements technical safeguards that should not be possible to override through social means to provide protection against governance capture attempts

2. Early Warning Systems: The pallet includes mechanisms to detect and alert about potential governance capture patterns before they succeed

3. Balanced Representation: Technical controls ensure balanced representation and prevent plutocracy by implementing voting power limitations and delegation controls

4. Cross-Collective Decision Making: Future integration of the “AND Gate” for EnsureOrigin for critical decisions to ensure that no single group can unilaterally make decisions that affect the entire collective.

These technical safeguards complement the institutional structure rather than replacing it, creating a hybrid approach that leverages both social and technical governance mechanisms for maximum resilience against capture.

Appendix E: Critical Governance Questions

The governance commitments being voted on address critical questions raised in the Polkadot Forum post that must be resolved before implementation:

1. Emergency Response Protocols: How will the PAF handle governance attacks, technical emergencies, and physical safety incidents at in-person events?

2. Accountability Mechanisms: What specific checks and balances will prevent governance capture and ensure responsible use of ecosystem resources?

3. Privacy and Legal Framework: How will the PAF handle member data and what legal structure will it operate under?

4. Balanced Power Distribution: How will the PAF address the centralization risks of the current geometric voting distribution?

5. Dual-Use Risk Management: What safeguards will prevent governance mechanisms from being repurposed for harmful uses?

[ltfschoen]

Appendix F

This is the final section of the proposal, continuing from Appendices A-E above. Please read the main post and previous appendices for context.

Appendix F: Post-Vote Commitments Approach

The following diagram illustrates the PAF Governance Implementation Timeline:

If all governance commitments outlined in the “Governance Commitments for Vote” section are approved by ambassador vote, the following implementation path is proposed:

Before On-Chain Implementation

Phase 1: Governance Commitments Vote

1. 5-day discussion period for this proposal as specified in the suggested Voting Approach section
2. 3-day Ambassador on-chain vote on these governance commitments as specified in the suggested Voting Approach section
3. 2-day period for tallying and public verification of vote results
4. 1-day period for publication of vote outcome with links to on-chain evidence

Phase 2: Pre-Deployment Requirements

1. Formation of a PAF Governance Working Group with balanced representation (at least two members from each rank 1-4)
2. Implementation of flat voting distribution instead of geometric voting to prevent centralization risks (potentially temporary measure subject to comprehensive security risk assessment findings)
3. Development of basic Privacy Policy and legal disclaimers compliant with relevant regulations
4. Creation of Terms of Use with clear limitations on emergency powers
5. Implementation of treasury caps with multi-signature requirements for transactions above thresholds (multi-signature approach could be enhanced in future with the “AND Gate” for EnsureOrigin approach instead once PR #9048 [WIP]: "AND Gate" for EnsureOrigin by ltfschoen · Pull Request #9048 · paritytech/polkadot-sdk · GitHub is merged into the Polkadot SDK to align with Dr Gavin Wood’s long-term thinking and not short-term results as highlighted here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nigLc42l9oo&t=72s)
6. Establishment of a basic emergency response protocol with clear accountability mechanisms
7. Identification and freezing of vulnerable pallet functionality until security review is complete

After On-Chain Implementation

Immediate Priorities (First 30 Days)

1. Community vote on whether to establish a transparent process for PAF rank reevaluation (given that initial ranks were assigned by the Advisory Board)
2. Initiation of security review process by qualified security experts (preferably PAL or suitable equivalent security audit providers)
3. Development of comprehensive governance documentation covering decision frameworks, conflict management, delegation transparency, emergency protocols, treasury controls, meeting standards, voting procedures, and working group processes.
4. Preparation of Ambassador Fellowship Manifesto amendments to incorporate governance safeguards
5. Creation of detailed accountability mechanisms for emergency response scenarios

Short-Term Priorities (30-90 Days)

1. Expansion of Terms of Use based on security and legal review findings
2. Consultation with qualified legal experts on governance structure alignment (either through the Polkadot Legal Bounty or suitable independent alternatives)
3. Refinement of accountability mechanisms based on security review findings
4. Technical Fellowship review and RFC process for the PAF extension pallet
5. Implementation of governance safeguards identified through the security review process
6. Unfreezing of pallet functionality only after security review approval and implementation of recommended safeguards

Future Implementation Path (90+ Days)

1. Submission of Ambassador Fellowship Manifesto amendments via Wish For Change (WFC) process
2. PAF extension pallet approval through Technical Fellowship RFC process
3. Runtime upgrade proposal via the Root track to implement the PAF extension pallet
4. If technical constraints prevent runtime upgrade, consideration of alternative implementation as a smart contract (only if absolutely necessary)
5. Integration of “AND Gate” for EnsureOrigin once PR #9048 is merged into the Polkadot SDK

This structured approach ensures that critical governance foundations are established before on-chain deployment, with additional safeguards implemented in phases afterward. If immediate deployment is necessary before all Pre-Deployment Requirements can be met, then vulnerable functionality must be frozen until proper safeguards are in place.

Ambassador Utilization and Engagement

5. Ambassador Engagement and Alignment:

   • Broader Ambassador Involvement: Beyond the core working groups (which involve 16-20 ambassadors), engage the broader ambassador community through:

     • Regular town halls with implementation updates (weekly)
     • Specialized task forces for specific deliverables (10-15 ambassadors per task force)
     • Peer review groups for documentation and technical specifications (20-30 ambassadors)
     • Community testing and feedback coordination (30-40 ambassadors)
     • Regional outreach coordinators to ensure global representation (15-20 ambassadors)
     • Funding Note: These broader involvement activities are voluntary contributions from ambassadors as part of their existing roles and do not require additional treasury funding. They will be coordinated through existing Ambassador Fellowship resources and communication channels.

   • Ambassador Rotation and Job Shadowing:

     • If more ambassadors wish to participate than positions available, create a qualified reserve pool
     • Evaluate all interested ambassadors using the Commitment Checklist criteria
     • Implement rotation system for certain roles to maximize participation opportunities
     • Establish job shadowing program for critical roles to ensure knowledge transfer
     • When job shadowing is necessary to meet target timeframes, contingency budget may be requested with proper justification
     • Rotation and shadowing decisions require PAF Governance Working Group approval
     • Maintain a skills and availability database to quickly fill vacancies
     • Absence Management Protocol:
       • Immediate notification system for ambassadors to report illness or unavailability
       • Pre-authorized temporary replacements from the qualified reserve pool for each role
       • Role prioritization system: only security-critical roles should require 24-hour replacement
       • Non-critical roles should be allowed up to 72 hours for replacement without consequences
       • Automated delegation of voting rights after 72 hours of unexcused absence could be considered if possible
       • Weekly review of all active roles and availability status
       • Documentation requirements for knowledge continuity during transitions, including project status, pending decisions, key relationships, access credentials, historical context, and known issues.
       • Primary and secondary emergency contacts defined for each working group (Ambassador Fellowship Coordinator and PAF Governance Working Group Lead)

   • Skills Development Program:

     • Technical workshops on governance implementation (monthly, hosted by experienced ambassadors with Meetups Bounty funding)
     • Governance design thinking sessions (weekly, hosted by ambassadors with prior governance experience)
     • Documentation and technical writing workshops (funded through existing Ambassador Program resources)
     • Mentorship pairings between experienced and newer ambassadors
     • Guest Expert Sessions:
       • Security workshops with PAL (Polkadot Assurance Legion) members
       • Governance theory sessions with PBA (Polkadot Blockchain Academy) instructors
       • Technical implementation guidance from Technical Fellowship
       • Legal and compliance insights from ecosystem legal experts
       • Community building strategies from successful parachain ambassadors
       • All guest sessions funded through existing ecosystem resources (Meetups Bounty)

   • Values Alignment Activities:

     • PAF Values Assurance Working Group conducts random audits using the Commitment Checklist
     • Implementation of witness-based verification system for Alignment Scores
     • Confidential remediation process with mentorship for improvement
     • Recognition program for exemplary values demonstration: on-chain NFT badges, public recognition, and priority consideration for future governance roles
       • Sponsorship Program: Funding through ecosystem parachain sponsorships, aligned Web3 companies, and community micro-donations
         • Transparent sponsorship guidelines to prevent conflicts of interest
         • All sponsors publicly acknowledged with clear separation between sponsorship and governance
       • All recognition primarily funded through existing Ambassador Fellowship resources and sponsorships (no additional treasury funding required)
     • Responsible: PAF Values Assurance Working Group with support from PAF Communications Working Group

Knowledge Capture and Sharing

6. Knowledge Capture and Sharing:

   • Final Implementation Report: Comprehensive documentation covering implementation process, challenges and solutions, participation metrics, governance effectiveness evaluation, and recommendations for future implementations, using all meeting documentation as source material.

   • Lessons Learned Documentation: Compilation of technical lessons, social coordination insights, governance design patterns, and security considerations from the implementation experience.

   • Knowledge Transfer: Distribution of implementation knowledge through PBA presentations, educational materials, public template repositories, and ecosystem-wide case studies.

   • Responsible: Collaborative effort between PAF Communications Working Group and PBA representatives

   • PBA Integration: Report will be formatted as a formal case study for inclusion in future PBA cohort curriculum

   • Timeline: Final report to be completed within 30 days of implementation completion

   • Broader Ambassador Involvement: As described in the Ambassador Utilization and Engagement section, the implementation will engage ambassadors beyond the core working groups through town halls and specialized task forces.

   • Documentation and Meeting Practices:

     • All meetings should have published agendas at least 24 hours in advance
     • Detailed minutes should be recorded for all working group meetings and town halls
     • Minutes should include clear action items with assigned responsible individuals, specific deadlines for each task, decisions made with rationale, and attendance records
     • Meeting agendas should reference previous action items and their status
     • All documentation should be stored on-chain using pinned IPFS with Polkadot Relay Chain remarks recording document hashes and links
     • Each document update should be verified with an on-chain remark from the responsible working group member
     • A single, comprehensive documentation index should be maintained with links to all current versions of documents from all working groups
       • Responsible: PAF Communications Working Group with oversight from the Ambassador Fellowship Coordinator
     • Progress reports should be compiled from meeting minutes at the midpoint (45 days) and end of the implementation phase
     • Documentation responsibilities should rotate among working group members to distribute workload
     • Templates for agendas, minutes, and progress reports should be standardized across all working groups
     • Responsible: Documentation coordinator designated by each working group