Community Working Group Intent (Draft)

Hey all! Your Community WG stewards (@Coltron.eth, @Limes, @brantlymillegan, @validator.eth, and myself) have been working on the following:

  • Intentions
  • Goals
  • Role definitions
  • Pledge/Code of Conduct

We’ve got a pretty solid draft of this and wanted to open it up for feedback and discussion.

Community WG - Intent (DRAFT)

Focus and Intent

The mission of the Community Working Group is to foster the growth of a thriving ENS community. The Community WG wants to strengthen relationships between those passionate about ENS in real life, the metaverse, and anywhere in between.

Fostering the growth of our community comes in the form of:

  1. Onboarding. Creating initiatives to introduce and onboard new users into the ENS ecosystem.
  2. Education. Educate new and existing users on the goals/ideals of ENS.
  3. Inclusion. Create safe spaces for the discussion of anything related to ENS.
  4. Representation. Initiate ENS DAO proposals that represent our community members.

Goals for the Term

  • Establish all reasonable subgroups
  • Provide operational and financial support for all established subgroups
  • Enable subgroups to succeed and meet their respective KPIs
  • Clear road map for achieving goals to be published in the ENS governance forum within the first 30 days of a Term

Pledge of Conduct

ENS DAO should consider adopting a code of conduct that spans the entire protocol - across users, moderators, delegates, contributors, stewards, and ideally TNL.

While there hasn’t been any sort of incident that would require this, I think it’s healthy to have guidelines for communication that we can reference if the need arises, and a code of conduct will be a clear cut solution for anyone to reference in case there is any need.

A code of conduct will result in clear moderation guidelines across the entire spectrum of issues - whether it’s a small Discord spat or a larger communication breakdown between stewards / working groups / etc. Referencing these guidelines will also allow for objective discussion.

I believe that ENS DAO should adopt the latest version of the widely-used Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct (with adjustments, if needed or desired). Hundreds of web2 organizations have already adopted it, in addition to some web3 groups like Yearn. There’s no need to create a brand new code of conduct when a standard already exists for this, imo.

On a higher level, interactions among anyone interacting with ENS DAO or on behalf of ENS DAO should be in good faith, and good faith should be assumed of the other party as well.

This code of conduct is not final and is completely up for discussion. There are things to consider adjusting according to the specific needs and desires of the ENS community, but this is a good starting point.

Community WG - Role Definitions

  1. Steward: Adhere to all specifications set forth in EP4, guide overall operation of Community working group, facilitate the creation and dissolution of subgroups within the working group, maintain broad knowledge of ENS governance process, coordinate with stewards across other working groups, be a champion for Subgroup Lead Contributors, ensure working group and subgroups are realizing their full-potential, assumes role of subgroup lead coordinator if necessary.
  2. Subgroup Lead Contributor (LC): Oversees the successful operation of a subgroup, establishes subgroup objectives, submits subgroup resource request at beginning of term or as needed, tasks contributors, assumes role of contributor if necessary.
  3. Contributor: Responsible for completing tasks within subgroup.

Note: Roles are not exclusive. Some stewards will be LCs and contributors. Some LCs will be contributors.


@spencecoin Thanks for posting this.

The Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct details some enforcement guidelines, which we haven’t talked about yet in our steward meetings yet. Although it’s good to have clear outcomes and interventions, I see this more as setting intentions rather than installing a rigid framework for punitive actions.

It makes sense to me that the discussion for this would start here in the Community WG. Would love to see any thoughts from the community and stewards on establishing a Code of Conduct.

Also, if anyone is curious about other models, Gitcoin has one that we can pull elements from.


I think importance of this work cannot be overestimated

setting out code of conduct can make or break the organisation, in my opinion it comes first before many things, if relationship and trust between people are broken, then organisation is no more

1 Like

Thanks for pulling this up!

The only feedback, is that the Onboarding process should go attached or shared with a role of “Caring” and “Guiding”. If we welcome newcomers and just provide them basic info, then we will be failing and there won’t be a mid/long term engage with the community nor the service. The onboarding has to be tighten with a User journey experience that fits the objectives of the DAO.

I’d like to suggest, that the Inclusion section also foster safe protocols, communications and an active role of someone taking care of conflict resolution.

1 Like

The lack of a Code of Conduct is hurting us as a community now. Is it possible to split it off as a separate proposal for accelerated processing?


The forum has a COC that I think would make an excellent foundation for a DAO-wide one: FAQ - ENS DAO Governance Forum


Hello Community,

I agree with @irreverent & @nick.eth, a COC should be at the top of the Community WG initiatives for 1Q/2Q. Especially in consideration of the recent turn of events that, without a doubt, jeopardizes the Stewards’ efforts to build Community.

I would like to suggest myself to lead and oversee the creation of a COC that encourages high standards for inclusivity and representation in light of the incident that marginalized a significant group of individuals within the Community.

Thank you,
Marcus Martínez


I’m all for this idea. Thank you for stepping up and offering. Let’s discuss this further soon.


Would it be interesting to bring over, a draft adapted from @nick.eth suggestion or any other to the next meeting for this WG?

1 Like

It’s a good idea. I’ll have the COC from the ENS DAO FAQ on hand for the next meet!


How will community leader enforcement be designed regarding greater community participation on enforcement consequences (1, 2, 3, 4) or will complete Working Group leader discretion be included in the CoC?

Will contingencies on Working Group leader discretion exists in say… the form of a public appeal process, when consequences or mediation arise E.g from a cultural-relativism issue?

Expanding, the CoC is about establishing a minimal level of civil and professional collaboration. Because of this parameter, how will leader discretion on enforcement exist outside the minimal standard offered by the CoC?

I hope this post isn’t misconstrued.

type or paste code here

1 Like