Meta SNIP-75: security council

[Eikix]

Drafting the meta SNIP for Security Council as part of the Fête du SNIP

[lucadonnoh]

For reference, this is the current upgradability structure:

Starknet would need to give up the permissions for all Proxy governors, Implementation governors, Verifier governors and bridge owners. Also, as per the Risk rosette framework and the Stages framework, the Exit window and Stage designation will stay at zero until forced transactions are implemented and proving is made permissionless.

[Eikix]

Could we get Starkware's opinion and more clarity on the roadmap, @iliav-starkware? (Can't ping Boaz, though I know he owns this track)

[leo-starkware]

Hey @Eikix, could you add sections "Rationale" and "Security considerations" to the SNIP, in order to keep a uniform syntax among SNIPs? Let's merge afterwards (after renumbering the SNIP)

[Eikix]

Hey @Eikix, could you add sections "Rationale" and "Security considerations" to the SNIP, in order to keep a uniform syntax among SNIPs? Let's merge afterwards (after renumbering the SNIP)

before merging, could we get Boaz's input or whoever is in charge of the security council is Starknet?
we could get the views of core devs of Starknet, since Security Council triggers downstream big changes to the L1 contracts of Starknet