Hey all,
First, huge thanks to @alisha.eth for crafting this proposal and beginning the discussion!
We’re entirely supportive of this proosal on the whole. These kinds of working groups (workstreams) have been successful in governance systems across the space.
Areas we feel 
_ can be most engaged:
Meta-governance:
- Our core focus is on building and improving governance systems. As such, we hope to play a role in the ongoing development and and evolution of both ENS and wider decentralized governance systems.
Public Goods:
- Through our work with both Gitcoin and ENS, we’ve taken a significant interest in how public goods are funded on Ethereum, and how this funding is coordinated. We believe that ENS has an opportunity to make significant impact on Ethereum Public Goods funding and look forward to continuing to explore how to activate this moving forward.
Thinking about next steps; it seems like the logical path forward for @alisha.eth to post the draft proposal, then put out a call for participation to the community, allowing people to submit an application to join their preferred working groups.
From here, we can assign the ‘genesis squads’ for each WG and begin pushing forward on more detailed structure for each including:
- Number of members
- Responsibilities
- Comms channels
- Incentives
- Short, med, long term goals
Questions that spring to mind:
- What is the optimal number of people to assign to each working group?
- How are group members decided initially?
- What kind of remuneration can be expected for participation?
- Where will comms for these groups live?
- What kind of responsibility/reporting duties will each group have back to the wider community?
- How will the groups collaborate and cross-pollinate with each other
- How will the groups interact with other teams/people working towards similar goals?