This is amazing work! I’d like to continue the discussion here now that a proposal is out. I want to refer back to a post from @James here: ENS DAO Working Groups. I think important points were left there, and I’d like to see that discussion continue some here.
From here, we can assign the ‘genesis squads’ for each WG and begin pushing forward on more detailed structure for each including:
- Number of members
- Responsibilities
- Comms channels
- Incentives
- Short, med, long term goals
Questions that spring to mind:
- What is the optimal number of people to assign to each working group?
- How are group members decided initially?
- What kind of remuneration can be expected for participation?
- Where will comms for these groups live?
- What kind of responsibility/reporting duties will each group have back to the wider community?
- How will the groups collaborate and cross-pollinate with each other
- How will the groups interact with other teams/people working towards similar goals?
I think much of the questions are answered about membership by @alisha.eth :
Participation in Working Groups is open to all. Community members who are not Delegates are most welcome to participate. I expect that it will be community members outside the Top 10 Delegates who are most involved in Working Groups on a day-to-day-basis. It is also important to note that in order to participate in a Working Group you DO NOT need to hold any $ENS.
There will be some sort of leadership group within each Working Group responsible for coordinating guilds/squads. Any proposal put forward relating to the creation of Working Groups will not include details on the internal structure within each Working Group. Establishing the best structure for leadership within each Working Group, along with any processes for the creation of guilds and squads, can be discussed within each Working Group once they are created. I am hopeful that the community will be very involved in this discussion.
Thinking about this however, in the proposal, in section [2.2] we have:
- A Social Proposal to create a new working group must demonstrate that the new working group is needed and the work cannot be undertaken within an existing working group
To respond to this, none of the initial 4 Working Groups need to submit anything to form? They will be passed by this proposal in its final form, once voted upon?
I bring this up because as I understand it, “Stewards” will basically be the “managers” of the working groups. In this proposal, the structure for voting on them, and the specifics about their terms, processes for removal, processes for second in line, etc is well thought out.
I would maybe like to think about adding some type of amendment for initial duties of Stewards to propose by say, 4 weeks into the term, the working group pass a vote on a very loose set of goals/focuses for the term. For instance, after the Stewards’ term begins, a proposal must be submitted to the community about what the general direction of the Work Group they envision for that term. This would get everybody on the same page, as well as having some measurable outcomes the Working Group is trying to achieve. I understand the specifics may not be available. But let’s say the Stewards of the Public Goods Working Group submits in their “forecast” that one area to focus on is to nurture Gitcoin integrations and relationships. I guess the proposal would be “Areas of focus for Term 1, 2022 - Public Goods Working Group” The “Areas of focus for Term 1, 2022 - ENS Ecosystem Working Group” might include focusing on updating documentation with more L2 specs/guides/examples. This way the community at large can see what the Working Group will be striving to achieve in that term.
This is in response to @James question of:
- What kind of responsibility/reporting duties will each group have back to the wider community?
- How will the groups collaborate and cross-pollinate with each other
This would allow community to have say so in other Working Groups, and allow for “reporting” on the progress of those term focuses, along with some minimal accountability for the Stewards to accomplish what was “campaigned” for as they were voted in as leaders of the Working Groups.