[EP 5.24] [Executable] Term 5 Q4, Collective Working Group Funding Proposal

[estmcmxci]

@AvsA

The reasoning behind merging all these 3 working group funding proposals and 2 social proposals as a single executable is to reduce the effort required by delegates.

Alex, I believe ENS delegates possess enough discernment to evaluate each proposal on its own merit. Each proposal deserves independent evaluation.

We should hold ourselves to a higher standard and trust that delegates are well-qualified, capable of swiftly understanding and judging each proposal individually.

Executable proposals should not be treated as perfunctory tasks or viewed as mere chores.

—

@AvsA

I believe that having them as 5 separate proposals (or even 2) increases that risk.

On the contrary, I believe consolidating multiple proposals in a single move harms the integrity of the DAO’s governance process.

This approach not only jeopardizes each individual proposal but also undermines the trust that each proposer placed in the proposal process itself.

—

@nick.eth

5.19 needs a new EP for the executable proposal. You can’t put the same proposal up for vote multiple times. The new EP can simply state that it’s requisitioning funds for the proposal approved in 5.19.

100%—this was the intention from the start. Frankly, I was dismayed to see that the proposal, EP 5.24, did not align with the text authored by @5pence.eth, nor did it adhere to the Working Group ruleset, specifically rule 10. Instead, it included extraneous specifications, such as an additional 100k USDC and 45k ENS to the Meta-Governance Multisig.

These additions should have been presented in separate proposals, as we had discussed. Unfortunately, the proposer made a last-minute maneuver, which became my personal ‘October Surprise.’

—

@5pence.eth

The choice to put this proposal onchain and include the assets needed to cover the Blockful Bounty Proposal and the Retroactive Governance Proposal into this single executable was not expected by the Meta-governance group, and isn’t standard practice historically in the ENS DAO.

I am corroborating @5pence.eth’s claim. This was completely unexpected.

—

@nick.eth

I’d also note that this thread still hasn’t been updated with the voting period and a link to vote. I’m aware that the process is manual and error-prone, but proposers - and MG stewards - should be responsible for ensuring the state of votes is transparent, and that voting is as easy as possible.

@nick.eth, just in case, I wanted to bring the Voting Period Bulletin to your attention. This is a thread I’ve maintained since April, which aggregates proposals and provides essential information along with a link to each vote. I update it as proposals go live and plan to continue maintaining it.

—

@alextnetto.eth

There were some concerns, but there was a consensus that it was mostly beneficial.

I disagree. As someone present at each Meta-Governance call, I observed that no consensus was reached. It was, in fact, very confusing to me, and I had to reach out to @AvsA to confirm his intentions and whether they aligned with proper procedure.

—

Unfortunately, I will vote ‘Against’ this proposal in the hope that we can follow up with a well-structured proposal to ensure the continuity of the Working Groups.