Thanks @mikemetagov, absent an Advisory Body, the formation of a Governance Advisor role to oversee and execute recommended reforms seems critical to the success of the retrospective overall, though the draft final report never makes explicit mention of how that role will be formed—whether appointed, elected, or otherwise.
The process to stand up the role needs to be explicitly defined by DAO governance.
Given @katherine.eth’s [Temp Check] Expanding the ENS Foundation Board to Strengthen Operational Accountability for ENS DAO, it should be the natural basis for designing the appointment and oversight process—at least as an interim path until broader governance structure is finalized.
—
However, I do not see the pending status of the abovementioned proposal as an impediment to at least begin discussing the role’s formation. Given the soft deadline of June 1st (~6 weeks) to make meaningful change or revert to the status quo, I personally see this as urgent.
Rather than taking a “wait-and-see approach” or playing a game of “governance chicken,” I’ll take the mantle to write a Temp Check on the formation of the GA role, its responsibilities, etc., and post to the forum before the end of next week for feedback.
Obviously, the Temp Check may be outright rejected or ignored, but I believe it’s imperative that someone take a stand on the matter rather than default to a Schelling point or a laissez-faire approach.