I am in favor of a committee model if the people on the committee will fund me.
I have shared my opinions in significant depth in these posts:
I think that my OpCo model outlined in the second post is a better, more fleshed out solution to the problems that you have outlined.
The ENS DAO continues to lack any kind of top-down product ownership. As a result, ENS has not, in my opinion, visibly developed over the past few years - it has stagnated.
DAO funding needs to be controlled by people who are incentivized to improve ENS, not people who are grifting the DAO or simply funding their friends. You will find generalized support for almost any structure if enough people believe it will serve their own interests.
ENS needs to find a way of hiring people based on merit who are building things that add value to the ENS protocol. That is why this needs to be a top down process - “This is what we need, who can do it?”.
Could you clarify what outcomes you are referring to?
Probably? We absolutely need to compensate. There is a huge opportunity cost to competent individuals filling these kinds of roles. Arguably we should be hiring externally.
Absolutely.