[EP15][Social] Dissolve Community Working Group

Thank you everyone for providing feedback on this draft proposal.

After reading through the 70+ posts in this thread, consulting with WG stewards, and participating in a community working group call, it is clear that the primary complaints related to this proposal are:

  1. the feeling that this proposal was advancing too fast;
  2. the feeling that there was not adequate consultation; and
  3. the fact that DAO participants may be disheartened if there are fewer Steward positions to fill.


To address some of these concerns, I want to reiterate that, by dissolving the Community Working Group, the only thing that will change is that there will be fewer Stewards within the DAO and there will be less confusion over what work each working group is responsible for. The subgroups within each working group are composable and can be moved around very easily. Everything that is housed in the community working group will be moved to another working group and will still exist. There can still be community onboarding calls and any other initiatives DAO participants want to roll out to support the community within the DAO.

The intention was to advance this proposal quickly. There was a small window where this proposal could have been put to a vote where it would have caused minimal disruption. I had hoped that the outcome of a vote would have been available before the nomination window opened. Instead, the proposal was delayed to allow time for feedback.

As a consequence of this delay, nominations have now taken place and Second Term elections are open for community working group stewards. This means that if this proposal is advanced and passed, any Stewards elected under the community working group will now no longer be required to serve as Stewards in the Second Term. This was the very outcome I was hoping to avoid.

Unfortunately, I could not turn my attention to this proposal earlier because I had spent the weeks leading up to the proposal consulting on and drafting changes to the working group rules that were passed under EP 12.


I believe that it is important to provide context here so there is a better understanding of my thinking when I originally drafted the working group rules last December and proposed the four working groups. The only reason there is a community working group is because there was a huge amount of excitement surrounding ENS and the DAO at the time of the airdrop and I mistakenly believed that this would translate into a lot of people wanting to participate in the DAO.

The reality is that there are so few active participants within the DAO that it makes it very difficult to justify having a standalone community working group. This is not a reflection of how important community is within the DAO, but rather a reflection of reality within all DAOs.

Steward positions

I am not compelled by the argument that the working group should exist simply because some participants may feel disheartened because there are fewer Steward positions to fill. We need to move away from the idea that being a Steward is the only position or contribution that matters in the DAO. In the nomination window for the Second Term of 2022 we had 23 individuals nominate themselves for 12 positions. Having fewer stewards will make it easier to fill Steward positions with quality nominees who are dedicated DAO contributors.

Forum Consensus

There seems to be an unrealistic expectation in this forum that unanimous consent is required from forum participants before proposals are put to a vote. The purpose of posting a temp check and/or draft proposal in the forum is to request and receive feedback. If consensus on the forum was the requirement to progress proposals, nothing would be progressed. The only way to gain true consensus is by putting proposals to a vote.

Next Steps

At this stage, there is now no good time to put this proposal forward to a vote without causing some disruption.

I have consulted with the current stewards of the MetaGov working group and they feel that the best time to put this to a vote is while elections are taking place so the results are available soon after the conclusion of steward elections.

If the vote passes, incoming community stewards will not be required to serve as stewards of the Community Working Group in the Second Term. All active Community WG subgroups will be transferred to the most appropriate other working group, which is likely to be the ENS Ecosystem WG.

If the vote does not pass, incoming community stewards will take up their positions within the Community Working Group at the start of the Second Term.


Hi all, I saw a few comments like this one and wanted to weigh in as a delegate who currently has a decent number of delegated votes. I wanted to share that discussions within these forums do matter a lot to me — I don’t often weigh in, but I’m regularly reading all of the back and forth and various opinions in order to make my decision in voting as educated as possible.


This proposal is now live on Snapshot.


As @slobo.eth points out I support the proposal to dissolve the community WG.

I think that this has been made into a bigger deal than it really is. We’re simply consolidating a group that isn’t needed and if we find that we want the community WG back, then we can simply create it again. Spring cleaning if you will.

I’ve been incredibly active in the community WG so I’m not just casually for dissolving it. I’ve experienced the issues and confusion first hand, and I can barely tell myself whether some proposals should go into the community or the eco-system group due to confusing overlaps.

And as @alisha.eth points out, we aren’t so many contributors that we need this many workgroups currently.

There is no need to overthink this.


I find discouraging that even that is being stated the three main complains, this proposal is being pushed, rather than opt out for another option.

I really hope that the support given to push forward this proposal, will be given also to the subgroups and initiatives on the next term.


Absolutely unbelievable to push through a proposal that makes the Community Steward election completely pointless on the same day it goes live. Almost symbolic in a way to “dissolve the community.” At least there is no longer any illusion that disagreement matters, when you can count on one hand the number of voters that have to agree to pass a sweeping change. I respect all of you and wish you the best from here. This was the last straw for me.

1 Like

There is no need to overthink this.

Eh, people are allowed to think about this on whatever level they want. It means they care. In fact I’d encourage people to overthink this type of thing!

I’m personally disappointed but I’m a big fan of the saying “it is what it is.

Looking forward to seeing the [hopefully-positive] impact that this proposal brings!


The process of exploring this proposal is worth reading over and over again.


I read most of the thread in order to formulate an opinion and have to say I agree with mostly what my friend @spencecoin says here.

I do understand the problem of too many workgroups (4 is not too many imo – you should take a look at gitcoin DAO ^_^).

But I believe there is 3 things wrong with the way this was approached.

  1. I think it’s too early to judge a workgroup and its effect on the DAO by only 1 term. I would at least let it run another term before drawing conclusions.
  2. I believe it’s really unfair to the people who went through the trouble to put forth nominations for the elections of the community workgroup who are elected, to basically be told they got elected to something that no longer exists.
  3. Perhaps it’s my non native understanding of English. Dissolve is too strong a word, as if the people who worked on the community workgroup are somehow punished. This is not what would happen if this passses. The workgroups will just merge, so merging community with ecosystem workgroup would e more appropriate a title.

As a result, I will be voting against this proposal (even though looking at snapshot this won’t make a difference).


What kind of doublespeak mental gymnastics is this? I spent the last six months contributing to the Community working group because I wanted to. I ran for Comm Steward because I want to play a bigger role in ENS DAO, within the scope of the Community WG.

I’m genuinely dumbfounded how you came to frame deleting the Comm WG and nullifying the Q3/Q4 applicants as “will not be required to serve.”

Bingo! “Dissolve” sends the wrong message to avid, non-technical Community members of the ENS DAO. I think the technically inclined folks wouldn’t have such a hard time with the use of this term. However, the Community is both a mix of non-technical and technical individuals. So we should take better care of what language we choose when communicating proposals, especially to non-native speakers of English.

Echoing your sentiment here in an earlier post @lefterisjp.

This is the force function of EP14. However, the communication leading up to EP14 has effectively disbanded any kind of trust and rapport that contributors of the Community Working Group had built within the ENS DAO. Trust and rapport is key to building strength in collaboration amongst contributors and their work streams. Contributor fatigue and burnout is real, especially when ENS DAO hasn’t resolved on how to properly and consistently compensate contributors.

Case in point. @daylon.eth contribution cannot be minimized. His initiative to begin the ENS Newsletter is of huge importance. Communicating to Delegates, Stewards, and Contributors of the ongoings of ENS DAO work streams helps build shared perceptions, which this organization is in sore need of.

Going forward, I hope that we can deliberate at large and co-write proposals as to achieve a consensus of sentiment, prior to pushing a proposal steadfastly as was done here.


I think this is a conflict between the legalistic wording that fulfils the requirements of the bylaws, and the intiuitive explanation of what’s happening. From an organisational POV, the WG is being dissolved, and reconstituted as a subgroup under Ecosystem.

Likewise for this - stewards are “required to serve” the WG they’re elected to. Saying that’s no longer required isn’t a reflection on their dedication or service.

I agree all of this could have been explained and communicated more clearly, and with more community buy-in. I hope we can learn from the experience going forward - and I hope it doesn’t put off valuable contributors like Daylon long-term.


Stewards are “required to serve” but also have “the right to serve” if they are elected, and this right is being taken from them.

1 Like

I think if this was communicated appropriately, more delegates like you would have been aware of this proposal earlier, and the vote would have been different.

I hope, that the governance next time is exercise in pair with communication and education to the community. That’s how you build consensus or at least, an educated vote that can challenge the “yes ma’am” tendency.

1 Like

This is not about “judging” the community working group. This is about consolidating work within the DAO. As explained many times in this thread, the work that takes place now within the Community Working Group can still take place next Term in the Ecosystem Working Group.

I agree that the timing could have been better, but again, as explained above and in the proposal itself, this proposal was advanced to a vote at this time at the request of meta-governance stewards.

To the extent that a working group ceases to exist, it is “dissolved” as per the language set out in both EP4 and EP12, so it was appropriate to mirror that language in the proposal. The working group itself will be dissolved, while the subgroups within the working group will be moved to other working groups.

Almost every major delegate voted and they voted in support of this proposal.

This proposal shows that the opinions of a handful of forum participants may not represent the opinions of delegates, which is the very reason we vote on proposals.

This vote passed with 88% approval from 415 delegated addresses. Just 21 addresses voted against the proposal, with 3 abstentions. If that is not consensus, I do not know what is.


This is an important point here, using the term “dissolve” because it’s in EP4 and EP12. I actually didn’t put that together until now. I think the wording did throw folks off.

I love this :point_up: We’re all learning how to do this DAO thing together while also navigating this crazy web3 thing… :slight_smile:

I fully believe governance delegation is working as it should. Even though I was on the fence about this proposal I left the choice up to my delegate. The fact that 88% of delegated addresses were for this gives me more confidence this was the right call. With that said, glad to be part of the Ecosystem WG now! :partying_face:

Thanks @alisha.eth for putting this together, great job on a not so easy task. Respect. :rocket:


This is a good opportunity for participants and contributors like myself to get more familiar with the language in those proposals. Thanks for pointing this out for us.

If I could vote, I would vote for the proposal as well. I just wonder if this proposal could been delivered differently as to not rock the boat too much. Growing pains are good! Thanks @alisha.eth, I appreciate the thoughtful and informative replies and continue to be a steadfast learner, contributor and participant of the ENS DAO.


1 Like

This is now up for voting onchain.

Why? I thought this was already done.

Currently the admin of the pod is the ENS governor contract. This proposal executes the transfer of the pod admin to the ens-ecosystem in Orca.

The calldata isn’t decoded on tally, but the executable parameters are below.

Signature: updatePodAdmin(uint256,address)
uint256: 14 // ens-community pod
address: 0x2686A8919Df194aA7673244549E68D42C1685d03 // ens-ecosystem pod

Target:0x17FDC2Eaf2bd46f3e1052CCbccD9e6AD0296C42c // Orca’s controller

Value: 0

1 Like