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.