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.
4 Likes
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 hasnāt happened on discord afaik. Would be great if there is a frank Q&A session about how the transition happens.
1 Like
- The nominations for elections open on June 6 UTC 9:00.
- 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?
2 Likes
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 havenāt 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.
4 Likes
-
Why would anyone put in nominations for a WG that may get dissolved?
-
What if the WG doesnāt get dissolved (i.e. vote fails) and there arenāt 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 & nomineesā 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 wasnāt 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
TNL stewards including myself donāt get paid for doing stewards as itās part of our job as TNL.
It is your right to express concerns but I think you are stepping the line again.
If you are against dissolving community WG, it is on you to get enough buy in for the vote gets rejected and have enough candidate for community WG stewards , not the responsibility of @alisha.eth who is proposing for dissolving it.
2 Likes
Just want to clarify. If I - hypothetically of course - want to run for what is now Community, should I instead run for Ecosystem?
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 donāt really mind all that much because I trust @Coltron.eth as our lead steward.
Originally I agreed with this proposal, and Iām not really sure where I land right now but I do want to share some thoughts:
Personally, I havenāt done a ton of work in the Community WG during this term. Sometimes I wonder if thatās a bad thing, but sometimes I think it might be a good thing too, because:
- The stewards theoretically should not be doing the footwork, thatās what the subgroups are for.
- I chime in when Iām needed and provide perspective and thoughts on things that I can provide value to.
I think viewing this proposal from a lens of āhow much work is being doneā is unnecessary because again, the role of the steward is not to put in the footwork, itās to enable subgroups to do things and make sure theyāre 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 itās a sound idea, because why have extra stewards if you simply donāt 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 doesnāt matter all that much - if itās more stewards doing less work, thatās fine. If itās less stewards doing more work, thatās fine. Thatās why I think viewing this from a lens of āhow much work is being doneā is unnecessary.
Another counterpoint is that this is the first term - I donāt necessarily see value in making sweeping changes like this so early, even if itās realistically low impact. And if it is low impact, why does this change need to happen at all? On a micro level itās 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 @vegaypās 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 didnāt. 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 havenāt 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 isnāt enough people for so many pods. Itās 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, Iām still not sure where I land.
Iām trying to further understand all the various perspectives of this proposal and appreciate everyone sharing their thoughts.
As a disclaimer, I know Iām a steward right now but I donāt really have a horse in this race. The first term is almost up and I have not been planning to run again, so it wonāt impact me if a community working group does or doesnāt exist after this. Iām doing my best to view this objectively.
7 Likes
Ecosystem WG had a call couple of days ago and this issue was on the agenda. But no one spoke on the issue at all; the call lasted 5 mins (on the topics on the agenda). Was it because no one cares? Not really. One of the most active subgroup in Ecosystem WG has already dissented to this proposal; so has another one in Community WG. The issue was that this proposal did not come as a Temp Check but as a notification of a decision. At no point it felt like the contributors had been requested serious feedback. This was proper backchannel discussion between 3 people and completely against the Rules of Governance which explictly state that the stewards must āactively solicit discussion and feedbackā. It needs to be given more time as we always do. We have multiple calls and twitter townhall/spaces. I am failing to understand the rush behind it.
1 Like
This proposal is difficult for me to digest. I canāt imagine which kind of sane persons will nominate themselves for a position that may not exist 24-48 hours later.
Edit: I realized that maybe the phrasing was too directly translated from my mother tongue. My meaning was simply to say that I expect fewer people to apply for a position that may end up not existing, so if the proposal is rejected, we may end up missing some good candidates. Hence I would personally prefer to have this voting done for Q1/Q2 2023 and not for the upcoming term.
Also, I think that this whole proposal should be made by the meta-governance working group, with more information to back it up. If itās done without them, as it is now, then their whole function is unclear to me.
I apologize, but this is simply not true. For me to write a good nomination text takes much more than that.
1 Like
In my mind, I always equated Ecosystem WG as a technology focused āproductā group, and the Community WG as a people focused āmarketingā group. Most companies have different departments for these responsibilities, so always thought it natural that ENS DAO would as well.
That said, Iād defer to the stewards of the Community and Ecosystem WGs on what the optimal org structure should be.
2 Likes
I canāt comment on all stewards, but for a few of us itās been a decent amount of work and far from symbolic.
One part of being an active steward is coordinating with other stewards. The more stewards there are the more work that is. I donāt know if this is the perfect structure, but it does attempt to address some of the issues that appeared this term.
The DAO will continue to evolve. I look forward to the next term.
5 Likes
Most definitely! I understand this completely, and like I mentioned earlier in my post people should be compensated for their contributions so I hope the stewards that are putting in the extra work are getting that extra comp!
2 Likes
I think the more important question is: what benefit is there from Community and Ecosystem WGs being separate. I think the experience from both WGs is that thereās a lot of overlap, and often confusion as to which WG is appropriate for what work. Given the high degree of overlap, and in the interest of removing unnecessary overhead, it makes sense to combine them.
3 Likes
I think it would be less confusing for the upcoming Steward nominations if we say ācombine Community and Ecosystem WGsā instead of dissolve Community WG.
1 Like
Iām hoping to dedicate the majority of tomorrow stewardās call this this topic.
Community Steward Call - Every Friday at noon EST. 12pm EST (5:00pm UTC)
- Google Meet link: https://meet.google.com/bqc-nskn-rzu
Iām conflicted. In my mind this is mostly a structural reorganization, but thereās no way to tell how this will impact the work being performed in the existing subgroups.
As highlighted by @spencecoin, we should be aware that this does reduce the number of positions in the DAO. I was looking forward to seeing contributors elevated to Steward positions next term, but there will be less opportunities for this to happen.
2 Likes