I want to comment that the collective proposal at the top of this thread was prepared and intended to be posted “as-is” in accordance with the Working Group rules that were codified in [EP 1.8].
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.
Because of the discrepacies, I wasn’t willing to link this thread to the proposal Avsa put onchain as they’re clearly not the same.
I commend Avsa’s inetntions of streamlining and securing the governance process with fewer votes, but I think there could be bigger problems created by creating omnibus onchinan executables that don’t have clear lines of atribution or casusality.
I would prefer to see this original Working Group Funding request proposed onchain as it is in the top of this thread.
I support the other proposals included in this Executable, but because I believe they should be separate, I’ll be voting “No” on this proposal.