Hi @mikemetagov thanks for the awesome work and sorry for the late reply, there was a lot to get though and I feel I’ve only scratched the surface.
To aid my own understanding, I created a simple mental model that tracks the lineage of how we arrive at the reforms presented in Annex A in the Retro Roadmap.
Sharing this in case it helps others in forming their own opinions.
How lineage is formed from the work produced.
- Hypotheses (identified as
H.x) - Data sources (
DS.x) - Findings (
F.x) - Reforms (
R.x)
As such we can discern that R-04 - Baseline Governance Templates is empirically supported by Findings F-05, F-07 from Hypotheses H4.1, H4.2, H7.1, H7.3.
From the information presented, my current understanding is that much of the work revolves around establishing a canonical set of operating documents across all the established DAO entities. Non exhaustive (DAO, Foundation Board, ENS Labs, Working Group (or successors), Delegate)
Across each entity there needs to be at a minimum a public facing policy, across each of the following categories.
- Foundational, slow moving typically ratified by DAO vote eg. ENS Constitution, WG Charter, Program Remits
- Recurring, Quarterly reporting cadence.
- Event-based, How given entity is expected to respond to external events
- Accountability, What mechanical checks and balances are in place.
Thus, helping define/refine a canonical policy inventory with status, version, ownership, and forcing functions outlined would be the main remit of the Governance Advisor role presented in the Retro Roadmap?
If so — I would support this function, as in my own exploration it is clear there is a deeply complex set of interdependencies.
Given your assessment what common steps could each active proposal adopt to make in-roads to meaningfully address dysfunction presented?
Would committing to formalise these templates/documents be a good first step?