{
  "payload": {
    "appeal": null,
    "disclosure": {
      "privacyMode": "PUBLIC_BALLOT",
      "reasons": [
        {
          "reason": "My proposal.",
          "representative": "Mini | Minurva [CST]",
          "seatCode": "FOUNDER"
        },
        {
          "reason": "I agree this is the best way to receive council applications, as it is inconvenient to rely solely on invitations. It also allows for a wider range of applicants from other clans, rather than limiting applications to those from clans that current council members are mainly familiar with.",
          "representative": "wizzz",
          "seatCode": "CHAIR-02"
        }
      ],
      "representatives": [
        {
          "choice": "NO_VOTE",
          "representative": null,
          "seatCode": "CHAIR-01",
          "seatName": "Chair 1"
        },
        {
          "choice": "YEA",
          "representative": "wizzz",
          "seatCode": "CHAIR-02",
          "seatName": "Chair 02"
        },
        {
          "choice": "YEA",
          "representative": "Mini | Minurva [CST]",
          "seatCode": "FOUNDER",
          "seatName": "Founder"
        }
      ]
    },
    "implementation": [],
    "proposal": {
      "category": "Ordinary policy",
      "contentHash": "7a70ac84d15010336925ea06b7ef27f6e55e93fa287387b69ab2b7babd9aeeb2",
      "fullText": "Renasca members should have a clear way to volunteer for Council service without needing to be personally invited, publicly nominated, or connected to an existing Council member. The Renasca website would include a Council application page explaining what the Council does, what is expected from its members, and how appointments are decided.\n\nThe application would ask for the member’s Roblox identity, relevant affiliations, current Renasca responsibilities, general availability, reasons for wanting to join, and any possible conflicts of interest. It should also include several written questions about impartiality, disagreements, confidentiality, and decisions involving a clan or person the applicant is connected to.\n\nApplications would remain private and would only be accessible to the applicant and current Council members. Applying would not be publicly announced and would not guarantee an appointment. It would place the member into an active candidate registry for future consideration.\n\nWhen the Council needs another member, it would review the active registry and decide which applicants should receive further consideration. The Council may ask candidates additional questions in writing before making a decision. Candidates should be judged based on their conduct, reliability, understanding of Renasca, ability to make fair decisions, possible conflicts of interest, and the perspectives already represented on the Council.\n\nThe Council should avoid selecting too many members from the same clan or closely connected group. No clan, position, or community would be entitled to a Council seat, and Council membership should not be treated as a reward for rank, popularity, or previous service.\n\nAny Council member with a serious personal conflict involving an applicant should disclose it and abstain from that applicant’s review and appointment vote. The remaining Council members would vote using the normal Council voting process.\n\nThe applicant would be privately notified of the result. Successful appointments would be added to the public Council record after approval, alongside the final vote and a brief explanation of the appointment. The original application and the Council’s internal discussion would remain private.\n\nApplications would remain active for six months. Applicants could update or withdraw them at any time and would be asked whether they still wish to be considered before the application expires. Someone who is not selected for one opening could remain in the registry for later consideration.\n\nThe Council could still invite someone to apply when it believes they would be a strong candidate. However, invited candidates would complete the same application and be evaluated under the same standards as members who signed up on their own.",
      "id": "cmt8ts34e008jtx3hwfil5y71",
      "number": "RCC-2026-0014",
      "rationale": "Council membership should be available to capable members who are willing to serve, including those who may not know whom to approach or may not feel comfortable privately asking for a position.\n\nAn invitation-only system would depend too heavily on existing friendships and connections, while a public election would encourage campaigning and popularity contests. A private website application provides an equal and organized way for members to express interest while allowing the Council to evaluate candidates carefully.\n\nThis process would also preserve applicants’ privacy, prevent unsuccessful applications from affecting someone’s reputation, keep candidate information from being lost in private messages, and give the Council a reliable pool of interested members whenever a position needs to be filled.",
      "requestedAction": "Approve the creation of a private Council application and candidate registry on the Renasca website. Require future Council appointments to use this process unless the Council approves an exception for an urgent or unusual circumstance.",
      "state": "PASSED",
      "summary": "Create a private application system on the Renasca website where members can express interest in serving on the Council. Applications would be kept in a candidate registry that the Council can review whenever a seat becomes available or additional members are needed.",
      "title": "Council Candidate Registry and Appointment Process",
      "version": 1
    },
    "result": {
      "abstain": 0,
      "calculation": {
        "abstain": 0,
        "approvalDenominator": 2,
        "approvalNumerator": 2,
        "eligible": 3,
        "explanation": "The proposal passed. Quorum required 2 and 2 participated. The threshold was more Yea votes than Nay votes. The final count was 2 Yea, 0 Nay, and 0 Abstain (100.00% Yea among directional ballots).",
        "nay": 0,
        "noVote": 1,
        "outcome": "PASSED",
        "participation": 2,
        "quorumReached": true,
        "quorumRequired": 2,
        "recused": 0,
        "yea": 2
      },
      "eligible": 3,
      "explanation": "The proposal passed. Quorum required 2 and 2 participated. The threshold was more Yea votes than Nay votes. The final count was 2 Yea, 0 Nay, and 0 Abstain (100.00% Yea among directional ballots).",
      "id": "cmt8xeikj003qtx3h15z20qi6",
      "nay": 0,
      "noVote": 1,
      "outcome": "PASSED",
      "quorumReached": true,
      "quorumRequired": 2,
      "recused": 0,
      "yea": 2
    },
    "schema": "renasca.public-governance-record.v1",
    "sourceCreatedAt": "2026-08-25T17:15:31.844Z",
    "timeline": [
      {
        "at": "2026-08-25T15:34:06.542Z",
        "state": "DRAFT"
      },
      {
        "at": "2026-08-25T15:34:06.604Z",
        "state": "SUBMITTED"
      },
      {
        "at": "2026-08-25T15:34:06.637Z",
        "state": "DISCUSSION_OPEN"
      },
      {
        "at": "2026-08-25T16:34:07.271Z",
        "state": "READY_FOR_VOTE"
      },
      {
        "at": "2026-08-25T16:34:07.363Z",
        "state": "VOTING_OPEN"
      },
      {
        "at": "2026-08-25T17:15:31.862Z",
        "state": "VOTING_CLOSED"
      },
      {
        "at": "2026-08-25T17:15:31.871Z",
        "state": "PASSED"
      }
    ]
  },
  "verification": {
    "algorithm": "Ed25519",
    "payloadHash": "bdb07106b22aa39369200820a13907990ed125db18d39773640a741e6ab26afd",
    "signature": "tQzyWdRXWkBkjTVnzZHs7gScjMx5G_PUJ4S-rfKeX-iEshndrZ70NefqSG5X-0Fr6yzr94WLxe27mVel2GMvDA",
    "signingKeyId": "renasca-records-2026-01"
  }
}