I have begun my off-boarding from ENS DAO Governance, and I will no longer be an active DAO contributor. Analytics & Research subgroup will need a new coordinator or it may possibly be dissolved.
I can take over A&R if necessary.
2 Likes
Couldnât have gone into better hands! 
tl;dr
RnDAO needs budget approved to buy the license and publish the survey. Survey preview is here: https://shrl.ink/RyaB, but consider it open to further work of course since the context may have shifted a little bit. I have communicated this in person to Meta-Gov, Ecosystem & Community WG stewards in private some days ago already, so the survey work is essentially halted.
1 Like
I have already moved on from it a month ago. But thank you for the notification; message received. I hope the power trip felt good 
Good luck for Term 2
Hey @cthulu.eth,
How can we request payment for the work we did for the survey inplco was also working on please?
For context: We originally made a proposal for research on Community Health that was considered to be too early for the DAO but the work we carried out was not part of said proposal. After seeing our proposal, Inplco suggested that our skills could be used for another piece of work (the survey he was working on) and we accepted to work on it. The payment is for the survey work. It seems said budget was requested but never approved (there was no response to the requests from the stewards), and weâre just finding this now and well, it looks like we just got caught in the middle.
@Coltron.eth suggested we can ask MetaGov stewards for payment but not sure how to do thatâŚ
Thank you for pointing this out. If only I had the chance to explain this in response in the private thread 
The work carried out by RnDAO was not part of their earlier proposal. The work they carried out was part of the agenda of Research & Analytics subWG approved by Nick â
1 Like
Hi @danielo, I havenât formally taken over A&R, I just volunteered to if there was a need, so Iâm not up to date at all on any promises inplco has made.
If a budget hasnât been approved for this then youâd have to speak to the meta-governance stewards directly: coltron.eth, nick.eth and simona.eth who can be messaged here on the forum.
The fact remains that that sub-WG did not have budget approval to spend funds on the DAOâs behalf.
I donât see where I have mentioned the funds. Simply taking the opportunity to outline the facts since the thread was closed and bossman didnât have his facts straight. RnDAO is aware that no funds were guaranteed although I had assumed that work approved in the agenda will be compensated pending discussion on the precise amount. Clearly my assumption was wrong. They are now seeking retroactive funding without my support which you should judge in public on merit.
Hi @nick.eth to clarify, weâre not arguing whether the subgroup had a budget or not. Thatâs internal to ENS and I understand we got caught in the middle of it.
Weâre just hoping you can see that we did work as requested by someone who was âworkingâ for ENS, in what looked to us as fully normal (given that for example, Alisha replied to a post that explicitly said we were working on something. And this is not to place blame, Iâm sure Alisha has other things to do rather than controlling whatâs been greenlighted or not. I mention it to exemplify how confusing and frustrating this situation has been for us).
So given we acted in good faith doing work for ENS on a short timeline to deliver on what we understood was a legit request, weâre asking ENS to have the grace of approving the budget for us.
Itâs not much for ENS and could be considered the unfortunate cost of a contributor moving ahead before approval and signing on a supplier, but given weâre not a wealthy organisation, it would be quite frustrating to take the shortfall.
I was carrying out the work that was explicitly approved by Nick in the foundation post as shown above. Unless the DAOâs intention is to get work for free, I do not understand their reluctance in negotiating compensation. I had repeatedly mentioned this work in forum multiple times as well as in calls so it was no secret.
1 Like
It sounds to me like, at the moment, the responsibility of payment lies on @inplco, since it seems heâs the one that promised you some funds that he hadnât actually secured.
What is the amount that you thought you would be getting? That would help put into context the extent of your situation.
I genuinely donât understand your mindset. You spend so much time on these forums accusing people of centralizing control from the DAO (often when they are actually proposing a decision to the DAO), but here you are suggesting that you thought a forum reply from a single DAO member was tantamount to sign off from the whole DAO (or even a working group)?
Any reluctance would come from the fact that this is the first any of us are hearing about a random forum member promising DAO funds that were never allocated. The âDAOâ never asked for the work, it was just you (or more accurately I guess, a sub-working group you ran with $0 in the bank to promise to anyone).
Ok
The creation of a sub-WG was approved. That doesnât entitle you to commit the DAO to spending money, and no budget was approved for your sub-wg. It was your choice to commit to a contract without funding to back it up.
Iâm sorry you were caught up in the middle of this. If inplco told you he had the authority to commit the DAO to a contract, he was misleading you. As carlos points out, your recourse is against inplco, who commissioned the work from you.
So you did not approve the roadmap? Or did you? Should I not have started the work? What should my next step have been?
I can answer it myself actually. I should have submitted a request for budget. But I did that. It lay there unanswered despite my tags to you. Then I wrote privately and Simona said she will get back but didnât until I reminded her three weeks later. You know about this. I guess my mistake was to start the work right after your approval. I finished the Stewardsâ Health Cards and RnDAO did the survey and before I stopped the work due to no-response on the budget, it was too late. So yes, it was my mistake to start the work preemptively. Not the fact that you ghosted your duty as a steward to reject or deny or comment on the budget, not that two other stewards were awol, but a working contributor is indeed the problem here. Before you give lip service to âcontract with the DAOâ, there was no contract, only people working in good faith in an unresponsive environment. RnDAO was kept in loop the whole time about the state of budget proposal; they just made the mistake to work in good faith just like myself.
The only thing that was approved was creating the subgroup. I know you understand this, and your attempt to muddy the waters by implying it gives some wider approval is disingenuous.
1 Like
I do not understand it. I honestly do not understand it and your accusation is an attempt to shrug off responsibility. Direct your lip service to the people who did not do their job please.
This would have been a nice conclusive comment on the budget proposal to be honest 
How come you or any of the stewards didnât say it then? It could have saved everyone this trouble. The subWG formation proposal was literally expedited. What do you think I was expediting if not the work? I am genuinely curious what you think you approved if not the work 
Yes, that is clearly your mistake. You donât have any guarantee of funds until there is a âyesâ from the DAO or a working group that you will receive funds, that should be very simple to understand and is how every budget process Iâve ever heard of works.
Just submitting a request does not entitle you to funds. A lack of response should clearly be seen as lack of interest in funding the request.
You are the only one with responsibility here. You misled someone to believe they had funds coming that you had not secured. Itâs that simple, and I think you know it.
Ok