I have a lot of thoughts about this.
First of all, I only heard about this by stumbling upon this thread - it was not discussed with the wider Community Working Group (and I presume it could be the same situation for the Ecosystem WG). That feels like an oversight, but I don’t really mind all that much because I trust @Coltron.eth as our lead steward.
Originally I agreed with this proposal, and I’m not really sure where I land right now but I do want to share some thoughts:
Personally, I haven’t done a ton of work in the Community WG during this term. Sometimes I wonder if that’s a bad thing, but sometimes I think it might be a good thing too, because:
- The stewards theoretically should not be doing the footwork, that’s what the subgroups are for.
- I chime in when I’m needed and provide perspective and thoughts on things that I can provide value to.
I think viewing this proposal from a lens of “how much work is being done” is unnecessary because again, the role of the steward is not to put in the footwork, it’s to enable subgroups to do things and make sure they’re getting the support they need. Stewards are, from my perspective, merely here to be a concierge that answers questions, directs people to the right places, and makes sure people can access the tools (and the funds) they need to be able to be successful.
So, knowing that, I see the reasoning behind lowering the amount of stewards and folding this into the Ecosystem Working Group. Objectively it’s a sound idea, because why have extra stewards if you simply don’t need them?
HOWEVER, an important counter-point here is that stewards, contributors, and everyone else are compensated according to the time and contributions they put forth. Unless people are wildly under-or-overestimating their contributions, the number of stewards doesn’t matter all that much - if it’s more stewards doing less work, that’s fine. If it’s less stewards doing more work, that’s fine. That’s why I think viewing this from a lens of “how much work is being done” is unnecessary.
Another counterpoint is that this is the first term - I don’t necessarily see value in making sweeping changes like this so early, even if it’s realistically low impact. And if it is low impact, why does this change need to happen at all? On a micro level it’s not that big of a deal, but on a macro level this is changing the core infrastructure of one of the biggest (arguably the biggest) DAOs in the industry.
I heavily, heavily agree with @vegayp’s thoughts above:
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 last thought is that being a steward is fairly symbolic, and I think giving more people the opportunity to represent the ENS DAO as a steward is a good thing. Being a steward comes with a sense of responsibility, pride, and ownership. Being a delegate is one thing and delegates are proud to represent the ENS, but being a steward is another thing and stewards are almost higher level advocates for the brand and the mission.
All that being said, I’m still not sure where I land.
I’m trying to further understand all the various perspectives of this proposal and appreciate everyone sharing their thoughts.
As a disclaimer, I know I’m a steward right now but I don’t really have a horse in this race. The first term is almost up and I have not been planning to run again, so it won’t impact me if a community working group does or doesn’t exist after this. I’m doing my best to view this objectively.