a new working group must demonstrate that … the work cannot be undertaken within an existing working group.
Rule 3.1 provides that working groups may be dissolved by passing a social proposal.
After consulting with the Lead Stewards of the Community WG (@Coltron.eth) and the Ecosystem WG (@slobo.eth), I am confident that the work carried out under the Community WG can be undertaken within the Ecosystem WG. This proposed structure helps streamline the DAO, so WGs are better able to fulfill the intentions set out in the ENS DAO Constitution.
To be clear, this is not a negative reflection of the Community WG. This proposal is based on streamlining the organizational structure of the DAO.
Below is a podarchy visualisation (thanks Orca Protocol!) of how the WGs of the ENS DAO would look for the Second Term of 2022 if the Working Group Rules set out in this draft proposal are passed and the DAO is taken down to three working groups. You can also view this visualization in Figma.
I’m for this. Streamlining the workgroups will make both work and administration simpler. It can be very confusing to know where a proposal belongs if it fits into two categories that overlaps.
In favor. Rolling up current Community WG Initiatives under the Ecosystem WG greatly reduces friction with management, task administration, contributor payments and so on.
I suggest the creation of a Subgroup that manages and administers ENS DAO Translation Initiatives. Perhaps simply retitling learndocs.ecosystem.pod.xyz to translation.ecosystem.pod.xyz may suffice.
Also, it’s a good idea to have the Lead of each Pod write a description of the purpose and function of their WG/Subgroup.
Agreed. The number of working groups is Too Damn High. We have some incredible contributors as stewards for both Ecosystem and Community WGs who would be more able to have impact if the space were less fragmented.
I’m against it. Community and Ecosystem are different things.
This proposal comes along with the proposal to reduce the number of stewards to 3 in each WG, meaning the DAO will be controlled by 9 people or less (since afaik, one can be a steward in 2 groups), which is too centralized to my taste.
Proposal: with so few WGs and stewards, why not to switch to electing a board of 9-12 stewards to manage the DAO?
On second thoughts, instead of centralising decision-making and changing the WG structure (which I believe is fine as it is), focus should be on better election process so the DAO doesn’t elect the same mistakes again. No amount of restructuring is going to help if the people inhabiting the structure refuse to coordinate. I still don’t see a single step taken by the self-appointed managers of ENS DAO to better the election process (e.g. some eligibility criteria for nominees etc), only more restructure and secretary hiring.
I agree that these two working groups could be kept separate and that may very well be how delegates vote. Community initiatives, such as documentation, will still be evident and highly visible through the use of subgroups by the Ecosystem WG.
The distinction between the working groups will be more clear to both delegates and DAO contributors if the Community working group sits under the ENS Ecosystem working group. In that case:
MetaGov deals with matters related to the DAO and governance;
ENS Ecosystem deals with matters related to the ENS Protocol; and
Public Goods relates to supporting public goods within the ENS ecosystem and more broadly in web3.
The Working Groups will be ‘controlled’ by 9 people who are elected by delegates. The decentralization of the DAO comes from the decentralization of decision making power, which exists whether there are 9 people ‘controlling’ the Working Groups or 20. In both scenarios, the legitimacy of the authority comes from the decentralized nature of the vote, not the number of people with control.
I completely understand your concern, and have drafted checks into the WG rules to guard against abuses of power. For instance, it is relatively easy to remove and replace stewards and there are several steps that need to be taken before a working group has access to any funds. Once it does have access to funds, it still requires 3-of-4 keyholder signing.
That’s certainly something that could be put forward in another proposal. This proposal specifically relates to dissolving the community working group.
The nomination process should not be exclusionary. It is open to everyone and that’s how it should be.
If you do not approve of this proposal, please vote against it when it goes to Snapshot.
