[EP15][Social] Dissolve Community Working Group

[zadok7]

@royalfork

In my mind, I always equated Ecosystem WG as a technology focused “product” group, and the Community WG as a people focused “marketing” group. Most companies have different departments for these responsibilities, so always thought it natural that ENS DAO would as well.

I looked at it the same way. According to that definition, maybe there still exists a strong need for a Community WG? We do have some gaps in good “people focused marketing”. I’m not meaning marketing, like Google Adwords marketing, of affiliate stuff. I mean to support reaching people. As an example, I still see a need for an ENS ambassador subgroup in the near future, also the concepts like the “gifting names wallet” Gifting names to a holding wallet until the recipient is ready - Request for feedback might not fit under Ecosystem as much as it would a “people focused” Community WG.

Both those concepts could fit under Ecosystem, I do understand the overlap and goal to consolidate. But still conflicted myself.

@AvsA

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.

I agree(d) with the above. It seemed like there was a consensus among the existing WG stewards that this change would be the right path forward. It seems however some of that changed.

@spencecoin

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:

@spencecoin

My formal stance now is that I’m against this proposal , but I’m not saying that for the purpose of going against the grain or because I have any motive - among all my other points in my previous post, the primary thing is that this feels early, hasty, and not planned out far enough in advance.

@Coltron.eth

I’m conflicted. In my mind this is mostly a structural reorganization, but there’s no way to tell how this will impact the work being performed in the existing subgroups.

I trust @Coltron.eth insights and perspectives on a lot of things, so had originally concluded if he was cool with it as the lead steward of the Community WG, then it’s probably fine since we share a similar mindset most times. I feel like that’s how stuff works in a DAO, by way of signaling. People who are aligned in some way, take notice and signal to others the right paths forward. It doesn’t mean you are mindless going along with things. Delegation is an example of this. You delegate votes to someone you think will vote in alignment with how you would. It’s with an understanding that the delegate you pick may have more time, or insight to make a better informed vote, so you delegate your voting power to them.

@Coltron.eth I’d like to listen to the Community Steward meeting, is there a recording of that? I probably missed some points and insights there, I was not able to attend. Any meeting minutes? I looked real quick and couldn’t find them.

My thoughts concerning people saying this draft proposal was done in haste…

I don’t think the speed at which this was in a temp check, and then went to draft proposal was done ill intent or “boss” like at all. It seems like some have insinuated that within this thread. I think the haste was more a matter of logistics to get this active for the next steward term and not in the middle of it.

With that said we have to consider haste has different meanings to different people. The Draft proposal in governance docs says this

“The purpose of the Draft Proposal is to establish formal discussion around a potential proposal.”
Governance Process - ENS Documentation

I don’t want to derail the conversation of the thread, but want to quickly ask if it would be beneficial to define a minimum time a draft proposal should be up? Maybe 7 days? Anytime after 7 days the draft proposal could go to vote? In case users want to re-delegate votes, it would be good to know a “deadline” to do so.

@spencecoin

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.

@spencecoin I really enjoyed a lot of the points you brought up in your posts here. I also am not running for any steward in this term(I’m not a steward currently or planning to be one in near future). You and I didn’t do too much together in community WG, we worked on different things, but I feel your insight into process, and being “matter-of-fact about things” might be great for meta-governance? Maybe you should consider? Just my last thoughts on this thread. Don’t want to derail from the dissolution of Community WG topic, but did want to address a few asides in this thread because they are important.