Forum subcategory restructuring

Can we discuss the structure of subcategories in the forum?

The current structure of forum categories related to working groups is that each working group (WG) has the following subcategories:

  • General Discussion
  • Temp Check
  • Draft Proposals
  • Active Proposals

My suggestion is to pull the above categories out of the WG categories (Meta-Governance, ENS Ecosystem, Community, and Public Goods) into a new category called DAO-wide. This new category will house proposals and related discussion for anything that requires the attention of the entire DAO.

The point of working groups is to empower working groups to make decisions without requiring the DAO to vote on everything. Where a DAO-wide vote is required, separating out these discussions and proposals for visibility will allow for ENS DAO members to access DAO-wide content easily, rather than having to hunt through proposals within each working group.

In terms of subcategories within working groups, each wg can have the subcategories ‘general disucssion’ and ‘resource requests’ along with subcategories for subgroups that are formed within the WG. Below I have inlcuded how this might work for three of the working groups.

Suggested forum structure:

  • DAO-wide

    • General Discussion
    • Temp Check
    • Draft Proposals
    • Active Proposals
  • Meta-Governance

    • General Discussion
    • Resource Requests
    • Subgroup A (e.g Treasury management)
    • Subgroup B (e.g. DAO weekly summaries)
    • Subgroup C (e.g. ENS DAO tooling)
  • ENS Ecosystem

    • General Discussion
    • Resource Requests
    • Subgroup A (e.g Integrations)
    • Subgroup B (e.g. Hackathons)
    • Subgroup C (e.g. Pull Requests)
    • Subgroup D (e.g. Bug Bounty)
  • Community

    • General Discussion
    • Resource Requests
    • Subgroup A (e.g Learn Docs)
    • Subgroup B (e.g. Support Mods)
    • Subgroup C (e.g. Translation)

Working Groups can have as many or few subgroups as stewards see.

Any proposal that requires a DAO-wide vote can be discussed within a WG, and then cross-over into the DAO-wide category at the proposal stage. I imagine this particular scenario will happen most commonly with the Public Goods working group, where a public good approaches the DAO for funding, which requires a DAO-wide vote for approval.

Some prompts for replies:
Are you happy for this structure to be implemented?
Do you have any suggestions related to subcategories that should be included in all of the working group categories?
Alternate naming suggestions for any of the category or sub-category names?

12 Likes

I think that sounds great. I can’t think of anything I’d like to add to it or change. I guess the subgroups will evolve as the DAO does :slight_smile:

4 Likes

This all looks really good. It’s perfect to start with probably. I’ll share a little feedback.

Will/should the WG categories be gated? So new topics cannot be posted into the WG unless having a certain role? Replies would always be fine, but new topics maybe we want to think about restricting? Airtable forms to “join as a contributor” to 1 or more WG?

A subcategory that might be helpful for each WG Category could be “Events”. I can foresee that being used to post relevant events that might interest the specific WG. ie. @Ginge.eth could post an upcoming Twitter spaces on hackathon review. Or Alisha.eth is going to be interviewed by X DAO, here’s the link and time of that event. Or, @Coltron.eth is meeting in voice channel with Learn Docs squad at X time/day.

Depending on if we’re gating topic posting to WG parent categories, maybe we append “WG” to let people know these forum categories are specifically for Working Groups.

  • Meta-Governance [WG] or
  • ENS Ecosystem [Working Group]

This way newcomers understand where to post, and get involved, and Working Groups can focus on work instead of clutter. This isn’t so much of a problem now, but form follows structure, and I do anticipate a lot of new people coming to help/participate within Working Groups.

5 Likes

Personally I think the application process for access to most of the categories is doing its job fine right now, and there’s no reason to be more restrictive than that. If individual working groups want to enact some kind of additional requirement, we could implement that, but I don’t think it’s necessary.

4 Likes

I agree with the proposed categories, and I believe they shouldn’t be gated to hopefully maximize transparency.

3 Likes

I agree with your proposal, and for the beginning I would let them as they are: without gating and more generic.

In this way, things will evolve naturally and going forward we will have a more organic index of categorization.

1 Like

I like the structure and hope to see it implemented.

1 Like

With or without an event subcategory it might be helpful to have another role, such as “contributor,” to be able to ping all contributors with a @[role-title] so they receive an alert for a post that requires contributor attention.

I could imagine structuring a post titled “Event: Learn Docs Meeting (DD/MM)” and then tagging @Community to alert every contributor in the WG to RSVP.

This is similar to how voting is announced for @ delegates

5 Likes

The proposal looks good overall.

Consider starting with one subcategory (General Discussion), wait a month or so to see what topics are posted across all working groups. If there is one, then create the category, assuming it happens frequently enough that it is clogging up the general discussion.

A concern here would be that folks who want to keep track of events in other working groups would need to check five areas of the forum (main event, + 4 event areas for each WG) to do so.

I’m a fan of letting hints of problems pop up before pro-actively solving them.

xkcd does a better job explaining this then I ever could. 1691: Optimization - explain xkcd

3 Likes

I dig this revised structuring. I’m sure there may be new sub-categories as things evolve, but for now keeping it streamlined is a big win and we can fill the gaps later based on feedback and workflow.

4 Likes

Huge yes on this restructuring! It felt somewhat overcomplicated to have to go seek out proposals within each different category.

No strong preference about naming/labeling the category/sub-category names.

3 Likes

All content in the working group categories is public. For write-access in the working group categories, there would be no additional gating beyond the current Participant Request Form.

Being able to tag active members within a WG would be very useful. I wonder if this might be a group that stewards have to build out manually, or if there is a straightforward way for people to self select to get notifications from a particular category (like Community WG) which means they could then be included in a group that can be messaged.

I appreciate the responses. I will go ahead and make the suggested changes.

1 Like

Hi Alisha,

This is a great starter set for each working group, only one comment:
did you miss public goods working group ?

1 Like

How about a section/category dealing with stats regarding ens token distribution, voting decentralization, tokenomics with regards to effectiveness of stakeholder engagement. I believe that these are important for how the DAO performs and functions.

It’s possible to create Discourse groups that anyone can add themselves to. That, coupled with a pinned post explaining how to do that, might be a good match.

1 Like

Hi @bobjiang, I think the Public Goods WG subgroups might look a little different to other working groups and didn’t want to add examples for the PG WG without context in case it caused confusion. Happy to jam on this in the thread in the PG category :+1:

1 Like