[EP15][Social] Dissolve Community Working Group

I’ve been out of pocket this evening with the American holiday, but as a Community Steward I fully support this draft proposal.

Reducing the number of stewards should focus the burden of responsibility on fewer stewards, which will result in increased accountability – something desired during the last term.

One thing to note with this pod structure is that, ideally, funding will cascade from the working group multi-sig and into subgroup multi-sigs. This structure will give subgroups greater autonomy by allowing them to oversee their funds. If executed correctly, this will reduce the need for a higher number of stewards.

The podarchy visualization may look intimidating, but this proposal only specifies a dissolution of the Community Working Group and a transfer of funds back to the DAO treasury. I am confident the future stewards will take on a number of subgroups that is not burdensome.


I changed my mind shortly after writing. That’s what happens when you write before the first coffee:-)


Agree with: that this seems, for organizational matter, more effective.

Disagree with:

  • On the other hand, I feel 3-4 months of roughly work for each of this WGs is not enough time to know what work and what didn’t. One clear outcome of this term is our poor coordination, and I think this proposal is trying to tackle this. But I am afraid, this comes out to soon: we haven’t have enough time to learn from our previous practices and try to adjust the current model, and this feels more like an aesthetic change rather than an improvement based on previous results.

  • My hesitancy comes, if, from January, another proposition for organisation comes, and then we will have to change again.

  • As someone said before, there isn’t enough people for so many pods. It’s not about having enough stewards, is about awareness of the time bandwidth that will be required to support this. One Lead for Ecosystem seems too short.

My apologies if this comes out strong, I deeply value the effort that are placed on this proposal, but I feel like this isn’t the DAO who is proposing this, or the delegates based on the community sense making (the time between temp check and this was short, posted during the weekend, so it feels rushed).


In the WG Rules amendment proposal active in parallel on Snapshot, despite multiple people commenting on the need of ‘accountability’, or at least a mention of it in the draft, nothing of that nature has been included in the draft. I can only put this down to lack of time and proper discourse because the only other option is that @alisha.eth unilaterally decided that she didn’t want to include it (which I firmly believe is not the case). In general, structural changes should at least be sampled from sufficient feedback (for instance the DAO-wide survey which A&R subgroup is working on for precisely this reason) and not subjective thoughts of two stewards. I am urging you to think this through one more time and allow for sufficient time for discussion, which is not now when everyone is super busy readying the DAO for elections.

At first it sounds like ecosystem would have too many things under its wing, but…

I believe the main role of the first term of the working groups was to figure out how working groups work ad don’t. So if both of these working groups though it would be better served if they merged, then I will support their decision.

1 Like

I agree with your sentiment. More can be done about discussing changes in existing organizational structure between Lead Contributors such as yourself and the Stewards before drafting a proposal. I believe that proposals like this should be co-written, so that it accurately reflects the interests of all those who participated in DAO activities and demonstrated high level contribution.

Perhaps this conversation is that very opportunity to co-write the proposal. I myself have no objection to the change, but if you have any amendment you’d like to make @vegayp I strongly encourage you to propose it now.

Continuing the discussion from Dissolve the Community working group:

Perhaps I am being a bit pedantic, but I believe that it would have been wise to retitle this proposal so that it reflects the essence of what is actually happening. According to this proposal, the Community Working Group is not being dissolved. It is being rolled under the Ecosystem Working Group; and so a better title might have been “Reducing The Number of Total Stewards from 20 to 12” (or something like that) since the reduction of Stewards is the force function of this proposal.

Edit: I understand that the purpose of EP12 is to repeal EP4 and replace the Working Group Rules mentioned therein. However, there is no mention of what Working Groups will exist in EP12. Perhaps consider to consolidate this Draft Proposal into EP12 for clarity’s sake, although now it may be too late.

@Coltron.eth understands that the focus of this proposal is to increase accountability. We shouldn’t be too hard on ourselves about the level of accountability of this term’s Stewards (or lack thereof). The efficiency and productivity of this DAO will improve with each iteration thanks to our high level contribution and outstanding work culture.

All in all, I am in favor of this proposal and hope to see it go to a vote.


Thank you immensely for this.

1 Like

My views have since changed and I’m focusing on productivity instead of spending time arguing over wording or details. The changes introduced here will likely prevent the issue of inactive stewards reoccuring by having fewer stewards and fewer workgroups.

That’s good enough for me.


I think this makes sense to do, especially if both current working groups are in agreement. If it becomes the case that separate stewards are needed for Community in the future, we can always spin it up again. I think focusing down is generally a good idea right now, and Ecosystem sounds like a good home for the activities Community is engaged in.

I don’t disagree with the worries about sufficient centralization, but since resources are still ultimately under the DAO’s control, I think short term concern is mitigated. Long term, it would be great if all these pods were formed/dissolved more organically, but I think that will require more involved re-structuring down the line after gaining more experience and learnings on how best to accomplish that.

Right now, let’s just do what needs to be done to get this DAO moving! :rocket:

1 Like

While two stewards may be in agreement, active contributors within those WGs are not, yet. WGs are more than just their stewards.

As an active contributor in the Community WG, I have no problem with this proposal. Really we’re just consolidating stewardship, but the actual subgroups will continue to function as before. The lead contributors on subgroups will remain the same as well I assume. There just might be a different set of stewards to reach out to for help if needed, but that was going to happen anyway with the upcoming elections.

It also reduces confusion I think. Often times I’m not sure whether an issue should be brought up to the stewards of Community or Ecosystem or both.


I have updated the Draft Proposal to dissolve the Community Working Group. This proposal will likely progress to an Active Proposal in the next day or so.


Can you move to the voting after the community WG weekly meeting on Friday? Some members of community WG have expressed their support in this thread but no WG wide conversation hasn’t happened on discord afaik. Would be great if there is a frank Q&A session about how the transition happens.

1 Like
  1. The nominations for elections open on June 6 UTC 9:00.
  2. If this proposal goes to vote tomorrow, it will remain open until June 8 at least (5 days).

Which WGs are the nominations open for on June 6 if the dissolution proposal is open until June 8?


I am interested also to know more about how the transition happens.

Nominations will proceed as normal.

If this proposal passes, the Steward elections scheduled to start at 9am UTC on June 10 for the Community Working Group will not take place.

If this proposal does not pass, Steward elections for the Community Working Group will take place from 9am UTC on June 10 alongside the elections for the other working groups.

Sure makoto.

The migration is simple. For subgroups in the Community WG, the admin of the multisig will be changed from Community to Ecosystem Working Group multisig.

If subgroups haven’t been set up, Stewards can decide to set them up before the end of the First Term to complete payments for the Term.

Any funds left in the Community Working Group multisig at the end of the Term will be sent back to the DAO treasury. All of the community related initiatives/subgroups can request funds in the budget for the new working group the subgroup sits under in the next Funding Window (July).

Happy to discuss in more detail on the Community Working Group call.

  1. Why would anyone put in nominations for a WG that may get dissolved?

  2. What if the WG doesn’t get dissolved (i.e. vote fails) and there aren’t any nominations for the Community WG?

Because the proposal may not pass.

This is very unlikely, but if that was the case then new elections for the Community WG would be held.

1 Like

🫡 One does not open nominations for a position that one is actively trying to dissolve. This is blatant disregard for rules & nominees’ time (who have to arrange for 10,000 votes). I have no words left.

I can see that consensus, process and DAO ethos have gone out the window. You have made up your mind about the results before even the community call tomorrow. I will show myself out.

The nomination process is set out in EP 4. It takes a few minutes to nominate yourself. I will make sure that all (human + genuine) nominees of the Community Working Group election receive 10,000 votes.

I wasn’t going to run as a Steward, but if there are no nominees for the Community Working Group I will nominate myself and find two others to do the same.

Is there anything else you would like to criticize?

1 Like