The service provider ENS Proposal has now a EP number of 4.7 and is now live on snapshot!
A comment on the 1M ENS requirement:
While it’s true that this is purposefully a high limit, It’s not at all unattainable. In fact, every single winning snapshot proposal has achieved that (including every steward that ever got elected), and it’s also the minimum quorum on tally. It’s also much higher than any one delegate can achieve. So I think a 1M ENS support is a good indicative of a broad ecosystem support.
Following the discussion at today’s MG WG meeting, I’ve changed my vote to ‘No’.
I still believe this is a good proposal that we should enact, but I have several issues with the current wording that I believe mean we should step back and write something more complete before proposing another vote:
- Incompleteness: The proposal does not specify when the vote should take place, or who is responsible for posting it. It also doesn’t specify what should happen after the vote; following the proposal to the letter would result in simply… stopping, with approved providers but no funding arranged. Other details are left up in the air - what is a ‘proper notice period’? Which OSS license should works be licensed under?
- Informality: Many other details are left up in the air, such as the format for service provider proposals. Ideally, this needs to be rewritten in extremely concrete detail similar to the existing working group rules.
- Rushed timeline: December 1 is a little over 3 weeks from the end of the vote, and many prospective service providers will be unaware that this is even available to them. We may miss out on many high-quality proposals because the providers are unaware or unable to prepare a good proposal in time.
I still believe this is a net positive for the DAO and a good next step in its evolution, but I think we need to take a moment to formulate these changes better to avoid creating chaos.
It’s a pity I missed that call, I just noticed it’s the only meeting not on my calendar. I understand the concerns and I believe most can be resolved but the main issue is the time: we can solve and debate the process to any minute detail, but I think the main question would be when would be a good moment to implement it.
The December 1st date is proposed so that we can have concurrent steward and service provider elections and process. I believe that with a 1 year term and more predictable income (considering EP4.7 passes) it will attract more candidates for Stewardship and we should share the call for steward candidates as wide as we can. Having also a call for provider candidates would also share that spotlight. Of course there’s an argument that the Steward election is a bad timing with holidays etc.
On the other hand, I believe if we wait until having a person with legal background to reorganize the DAO governance and rewrite the whole proposal guidelines and rewrite all the minutia, that could push the project by at least six to eight months at minimum! I believe by then we would have lost a lot of good talent.
The proposal came not on a whim, but because I started hearing from great talented people and teams that were contributing to the growth of ENS, but because the ENS sales went down with the NFT bust, they were having to either pivot to something else or even leave ENS. Some want to be developing ENS full time but are having to rely on grants or other ENS related jobs – which aren’t that many. Most of them will have left in 6 months.
I’d be happy to sit in calls with Metagov and try to refine all the details, but I think we should target to have the stream happen if not in January but at most in February so we don’t lose people. We are expected to have a new working group by jan 1st, with a budget that is being approved right now of over $2.4M a year, so I think it’s reasonable to also have providers be concurrent with that. Maybe we could discuss pushing all the steward/provider cycle a month earlier or a month later, but that seems like a separate discussion.
Also let’s remember that there will be two other votes - at minimum – so the stream can get further legitimacy and refinement from the DAO. The current is mostly about if we agree with the idea and what would be the budget. Then when the election happens, every group would also have to get enough votes to qualify by themselves (meaning that it’s not a given that the whole budget will be used up) and finally there must be a third vote when we actually want to execute it.
I’ve been thinking more about the feedback on the lack of completeness so I decided to put a draft of the rules that we can all compose together.
I believe this should not require a separate vote: the draft is aligned with the spirit of the active vote’s text and there’s no clear governance process that requires the full working draft to be exist before the vote can happen. I also added a requirement for a None of the Above option on the future vote for selection that could serve as another further validation from the community that they agree with the process.
I welcome everyone to voice their suggestions on the draft of the rules and I look forward to seeing the stream in action!
I think writing DAO bylaws will be quicker than that, but I agree that we don’t need to wait for them to be written before we can pass provider streams. I just think they need to be much better specified than they were in EP4.8.
That seems realistic.
I would have voted for it if it were just that - but it includes a deadline of December 1, and imposes an obligation on some unspecified group or individual to hold a vote.
This looks like a great start!
I’m not sure what you mean by this. How can we vote on something that isn’t written yet?