[EP12][Social] Working Group Rules

Status Passed
Discussion Thread Discuss
Vote Snapshot
Author @alisha.eth

Description

Proposes to repeal the working group rules passed in EP4 and replace those rules with the working group rules specified in this proposal.

Abstract

This is a proposal to repeal the working group rules passed in EP4 and replace those rules with working group rules specified in this proposal for the Second Term of 2022 and all Terms thereafter.

The working group rules specified in this proposal add more details about Steward responsibilities and the management of working group funds, as well as introducing the requirement of each working group to appoint a lead steward.

The specification below also introduces a rule to appoint a new DAO Secretary, responsible for managing working relationships and communications across working groups as well as performing administrative duties for the DAO.

Specification

Working Groups Rules

  1. Formation of Working Groups

    1. To create a new working group, a social proposal, as defined by the ENS governance documentation (‘Social Proposal’), must be put forward and passed by the DAO.
    2. A Social Proposal to create a new working group must demonstrate that the new working group is needed and the work cannot be undertaken within an existing working group.
  2. Dissolution of Working Groups

    1. A working group can be dissolved by passing a Social Proposal requesting the dissolution of a working group or working groups.
    2. If an active proposal is put forward to dissolve a working group, all working group funds, including outgoing payments, within that working group, are to be frozen with immediate effect, pending the outcome of that vote.
    3. Upon the dissolution of a working group, any and all unspent working group funds from that working group, at the time of dissolution, must be immediately returned to the DAO treasury, without delay.
  3. Working Group Stewards

    1. Each working group shall be managed by three stewards (hereafter a ‘Steward’ or ‘Stewards’).
    2. Stewards will be elected to serve within working groups for a set period of time (hereafter known as a ‘Term’ or ‘Terms’).
    3. There are two Terms each calendar year:
      1. The first Term commences at 9am UTC on January 1 each year and ends immediately prior to the commencement of the second Term (‘First Term’); and
      2. The second Term commences at 9am UTC on July 1 each year and ends immediately prior to the commencement of the First Term of the following year (‘Second Term’).
    4. Stewards are responsible for overseeing the operation of working groups in accordance with these rules and the ENS DAO constitution.
    5. The responsibilities of Stewards include, but are not limited to:
      1. Requesting working group funds from the DAO in accordance with these rules;
      2. Approving the creation of sub-groups or workstreams within a working group to undertake work and/or carry out specific projects or tasks;
      3. Dissolving sub-groups or workstreams within a working group;
      4. Using discretion to make working group funds available to sub-groups, workstreams, or contributors within a working group;
      5. Using discretion to disburse working group funds to people and/or projects in accordance with the ENS DAO constitution; and
      6. Acting as keyholders of working group multi-sigs.
  4. Steward Eligibility and Nominations

    1. Any individual is eligible to nominate themselves to be a Steward of a working group within the DAO (‘Eligible Person’ or ‘Eligible Persons’).
    2. To be eligible to be included in the ballot for First Term elections of a given year, Eligible Persons must nominate themselves between 9am UTC on December 6 and 9am UTC on December 9 (‘First Term Nomination Window’).
    3. To be eligible to be included in the ballot for Second Term elections of a given year, Eligible Persons must nominate themselves between 9am UTC on June 6 and 9am UTC on June 9 (‘Second Term Nomination Window’).
    4. An Eligible Person may nominate themselves to become a Steward of a working group or working groups during the First Term Nomination Window or the Second Term Nomination Window (each a ‘Nomination Window’), by meeting the requirements set out in a call for nominations posted in the relevant working group category of the ENS governance forum.
    5. An Eligible Person who completes the steps outlined in rule 4.4 above during a Nomination Window and receives 10,000 signed votes to support their nomination will be included in the ballot as a nominee in the election for Stewards that takes place following that Nomination Window (‘Nominee’).
  5. Steward Elections

    1. Elections for working group Stewards for the First Term of a given year will take place by a vote of governance token holders using signed messages and will be open for 120 hours, commencing at 9am UTC on December 10 each year (‘First Term Election Window’).
    2. Elections for working group Stewards for the Second Term of a given year will take place by a vote of governance token holders using signed messages and will be open for 120 hours, commencing at 9am UTC on June 10 each year (‘Second Term Election Window’).
    3. The top-ranked Nominees from each working group vote held during a First Term Election Window or a Second Term Election Window (each an ‘Election Window’), will fill any available positions for the role of Steward for those working groups for the Term immediately following an Election Window, based on the order in which they are ranked in each working group vote.
    4. A Nominee elected to serve as a Steward may not take up the role of Steward for more than two working groups during a single Term.
  6. Delay of Nominations or Elections

    1. In the event that nominations or elections for Stewards take place after a Nomination Window or after an Election Window, the nomination process and/or elections shall take place, as otherwise prescribed in rules 4 and 5 above, as soon as is practicable after the missed Nomination Window or missed Election Window.
    2. In the event that an election takes place outside of an Election Window and after the commencement date of a new Term, outgoing Stewards from the previous Term shall stay in their positions as working group Stewards until immediately prior to 9am UTC the day following the end of the election, which, for the avoidance of doubt, is 120 hours after voting in those elections commenced.
    3. In the event that an election takes place outside of an Election Window and after the commencement date of a new Term, newly elected Stewards will assume the responsibilities of stewardship within working groups at 9am UTC the day following the end of the election, as defined in rule 6.2 above, for the remainder of that Term.
  7. Removal and Replacement of Stewards

    1. Stewards may be removed at any time by:
      1. a Social Proposal passed by the DAO; or
      2. a simple indicative majority vote among Stewards of all working groups, with the outcome of that vote communicated in the relevant working group category of the ENS governance forum.
    2. Stewards may step down from their position at any time by communicating their intention to step down in the ENS governance forum.
    3. In the event that a Steward is removed, steps down, or is unable to continue as a Steward, for whatever reason, prior to the end of a Term, a new election must be held to fill any vacant Steward positions, in accordance with rule 6 above.
  8. Lead Stewards

    1. Each working group must appoint a lead Steward within the first five days of a Term (hereafter a ‘Lead Steward’ or 'Lead Stewards).
    2. Only current elected Stewards of a working group are eligible to serve as Lead Stewards within a given working group.
    3. Lead Stewards may be appointed or removed from that role at any time by a simple indicative majority vote among the Stewards of a working group, with the outcome of that vote communicated in the relevant working group category of the ENS governance forum.
    4. In the event that a Lead Steward steps down from the position or is removed as a Lead Steward before the end of a Term in accordance with rule 8.3 above, a new Lead Steward must be appointed within five calendar days.
    5. A Steward who is appointed to serve as a Lead Steward of a working group will remain in that position, as Lead Steward, from the date of appointment until the end of their elected Term as a Steward or until they are removed as a Lead Steward in accordance with rule 8.3 above or until they are removed as a Steward in accordance with rule 7 above.
    6. Lead Stewards are responsible for the operational management and administration of working groups and are expected to provide regular updates to the DAO in the ENS governance forum related to working group progress, achievements, and challenges.
    7. The responsibilities of Lead Stewards include, but are not limited to:
      1. Acting as a representative of a working group;
      2. Managing resource requests from sub-groups, workstreams, and contributors within a working group;
      3. Initiating the disbursement of working group funds on an as-needed basis;
      4. Providing reports of working group spending in the ENS governance forum; and
      5. Maintaining open communications with DAO participants in the ENS governance forum.
  9. DAO Secretary

    1. At the start of each Term, the current Stewards of each working group shall collaborate to appoint an individual who will serve as the secretary of the DAO (hereafter ‘Secretary’ or ‘Secretaries’).
    2. The Secretary may be appointed or removed from that role at any time by a majority vote of all elected Stewards in a given Term with the outcome of that vote communicated in the ENS governance forum.
    3. The Secretary will remain in that position, as Secretary of the DAO, from the date of appointment until the end of a given Term or until the date at which they are removed from that position in accordance with rule 9.2 above.
    4. Secretaries are eligible to receive fair compensation for their work as Secretary of the DAO.
    5. Compensation for the Secretary of the DAO is to be paid by the Meta-Governance Working Group using funds requested in accordance with rule 10 below.
    6. Any individual is eligible to be appointed as the Secretary of the DAO, including past and present working group Stewards.
    7. The Secretary is responsible for managing working relationships and communications across working groups as well as performing administrative duties for the DAO.
    8. The responsibilities of the Secretary include, but are not limited to:
      1. Managing a DAO-wide calendar;
      2. Coordinating and attending working group meetings where possible and ensuring meeting summaries are posted in the ENS governance forum;
      3. Assisting Stewards with coordination challenges within working groups; and
      4. Acting as a multi-sig keyholder for each working group.
  10. Working Group Funds

    1. To request working group funds, Stewards of all working groups will collaborate to submit an active executable proposal, as defined by the ENS governance documentation (‘Collective Proposal’), to the DAO during the months of January, April, July, and October each calendar year (each a ‘Funding Window’).
      1. In order for a working group to have a funding request included in a Collective Proposal submitted to the DAO during a Funding Window, the funding request must have passed as a Social Proposal in the same Funding Window.
      2. In the case of an emergency, where working group funds are needed by a working group outside of a Funding Window, an executable proposal, as defined by the ENS governance documentation, may be submitted at any time by a Steward of a working group to request funds from the DAO.
    2. Working group funds requested and approved in accordance with rule 10.1 above are to be paid out into separate working group multi-sigs controlled by the DAO.
    3. Each working group multi-sig must have four keyholders, made up of three current elected Stewards for that working group and the Secretary of the DAO for that Term, with no other keyholders permitted.
    4. Working group funds may be disbursed from working group multi-sigs with three-of-four keyholder signing.
    5. Stewards of a given working group shall have the discretion to reallocate funds approved in a Collective Proposal where appropriate and where it is not in conflict with any rules of the DAO, DAO bylaws, or the ENS DAO constitution.
  11. Compensation for Stewards and Lead Stewards

    1. Stewards are eligible to receive fair compensation for their work as a Steward or Lead Steward in the DAO.
    2. All requests for Steward or Lead Steward compensation must be detailed in a Collective Proposal for working group funds submitted to the DAO in accordance with rule 10.1 above.
    3. Stewards may not receive compensation for their role as a Steward or Lead Steward outside of that compensation expressly provided for in a Collective Proposal submitted to the DAO in accordance with rule 10.1 above.
  12. Amendments

    1. These rules may be amended at any time by passing a Social Proposal.
11 Likes

Discussion regarding this Draft Proposal can be viewed in this thread.

Please provide comments and feedback, paying special attention to rules 3, 8, 9, and 10. Things to check for include;

  • Spelling
  • Correct references

I support this proposal as written.

The DAO Secretary is a force multiplier for all stewards and contributors. The value of this role cannot be underestimated.

3 Likes

I support this proposal. It’s definitely a needed evolution for the DAO.

The key things that makes this a needed evolution include:

  • Increased coordination between Stewards makes sure that what’s good for the DAO is being done in an effective way
  • Regular updates as a requirement decreases the need for multiple inquires that require time and responses from Stewards
  • Lead Steward, not only creates a point of contact, it is a point of accountability
  • There’s a defined way for people to exit roles. The DAO is only one part of the life of a Steward, and the responsibilities in life of a person change over time. The defined exit leaves space for grace.
10 Likes

This looks good to me.

1 Like

Could this be highlighted so we can have a smidgen of accountability in the draft? I would love to see the word ‘accountability’ mentioned at least once.

1 Like

I have made edits to the draft proposal in response to feedback received on the proposal.
To view the edits, click on the orange pencil with a ‘2’ next to it at the start of the thread.

1 Like

This proposal is now live on Snapshot. Voting is open for 5 days.

2 Likes

Hey @alisha.eth thanks for the write-up. It sounds good to me. Also I like the feedback to include “accountability” as a main descriptor of the role.

2 Likes

I have voted ‘YES’ on Snapshot, but I am personally disappointed to see that we couldn’t get the word ‘accountability’ in there at least once. After so much effort to push for accountability in the draft, it is disheartening to see those comments being ignored while the proposal has been rushed through to Snapshot. @alisha.eth Can I please ask if there was a specific reason to not include ‘accountability’ in the draft?

The changes in this proposal focus on specifying clear responsibilities for stewards and lead stewards. By clearly specifying responsibilities, it is easier to hold stewards accountable. Including the word “accountability” does not mean that there is accountability. The accountability comes from the ability of delegates and stewards to use these rules to remove a steward (or secretary) who does not fulfil their responsibilities.

4 Likes

Can I assume that it was your unilateral decision to not include ‘accountability’ explicitly? On the record, if I may. It is very easy to accomodate feedback from others; for example, 3.4 could read with addition of few words,

‘Stewards are responsible and accountable unto removal for overseeing the operation of working groups in accordance with these rules and the ENS DAO constitution.’,

or something similar. Nothing too fancy.

My thought process is set out in a response above, copied below for ease of reference.

I’ll take that as a ‘Yes’, thank you. Please consider making room for comments and feedback from others in the future, even when they go against your personal thought-process. It is part and parcel of co-working in a DAO.

@alisha.eth did make room for feedback and explained her reason for not including the word ‘accountability’ specifically. Do you want her to post it again so you understand?

Proposals are co-written, even if they are manually written by a single entity. The drafter must include all inputs from the contributors when such input has been explicitly requested by several members. Proposals are collaborative work. I have drafted many myself and I consider it my duty to include whatever has been substantially requested.

Incorrect. Proposals can be written and submitted by anyone. They do not have to be co-written.

Again, incorrect. Authors of proposals do not need to include feedback. They may seek feedback, but the author of a proposal ultimately decides what is included in a proposal and what is put to a vote.

You have? I would love the see the “many” proposals you have submitted to the DAO.

Not going to engage in a war of words on this thread. Not the place for it. Thank you for your input.

You’re welcome.

It sounds to me like she heard your feedback and incorporated it in the way she thought was best for the proposal. No proposal writer is under any obligation to include specific language from someone simply because they suggested it.

If you feel strongly about that word being critical to the proposal, you could always make an edited proposal of your own.

I don’t remember seeing that in the Constitution or any governance rules. It sounds like a personal perspective, not a rule. No one is entitled to have edits applied to someone else’s proposal. If you think your suggestion is critical, your always welcome to vote it down and encourage others to do the same.

At the end of the day, the votes are what determines what is right and wrong.

3 Likes