@simona_pop last posted ~ 1-2 months ago (has only posted once since their election) @jmj last posted his acceptance of the role (has not posted since election) @James last posted ~ 2 months ago (has only posted twice since their election)
All threads, discussions, proposals etc within the WG are stalled, with absolutely no input or guidance from anyone apart from Nick. I initiate this proposal for re-election of Meta-Governance Stewards and call for early elections for new Stewards for Q2/3/4. Please vote below for an informative tempcheck.
Should the Meta-Governance WG hold re-elections for Stewards?
Yes
No
0voters
I also propose withholding compensations to the elected Stewards for their non-work.
Considering that the total number of posts by the Meta-Governance WG stewards since their election (3) are equal to the number of stewards themselves (3), all three should consider resigning in good faith.
I thought they went to Discord to smoke but they haven’t been there either. Probably went to another town DAO. Did ENS run out of cigs? *puts it on WG budget*
Have you reached directly to the stewards in question?
Meta governance is very important, and they are probably the ones that should be talking about the endowment, how it would work, treasury debates, etc.
I have tagged them in some posts/threads/discussions where we needed input but haven’t received any response. Other than that, they have been tagged in this post but it hasn’t drawn their attention either. I do not have permissions to send mass DMs on Discourse. I consider their position relinquished on account of malpractice. Stalled works include:
I have reached out to the stewards. I will confirm a time in the next day for a public meeting to be held before the end of this week so we can work on coordinating more action within the Meta-Gov working group.
Side Note: I just removed the EP reference in the title of this temp check to avoid confusion. As set out in the governance process if this was to progress then the EP status and number would be assigned by the forum mod before the proposal is progressed to an active status.
Hey @inplco - thanks for raising this. I don’t for some reason have any notifications of your various tags as you say, unsure what is happening there as this is the first tag I got notified of
Indeed the proposal for subgroups was ready to go out just before the Brantly situation emerged so got delayed by the huge focus on that issue and the discussion all the MG stewards were involved in that weekend and in the coming weeks regarding the course of events.
The subgroup and self selecting process would have solved the issue of appointing a coordinator to schedule calls for what are three distinct timezones for the group and create some semblance of flow in actions to be taken (which is a key piece in making sure stewardship actually moves at a steady pace).
From my side, I fully agree that my focus has been distracted in the past month not just by the situation mentioned above but mobilizing an effort for Ukraine fundraising via Gitcoin Grants and my own family being close to the conflict. But that is human context that may be irrelevant to the way metagov conversations happen at the moment (all governance should be fluid with the ability to move in and out as circumstances may dictate).
There are three months left in the term and really the treasury management piece related to the endowment fund is the most important issue to figure out for this term. We’re trying to schedule a call that all of us can attend and come up with next steps and of course, discuss this issue brought forward.
And yeah, we are in other DAOs this is why it’s so important to create the standards and flows to ensure stewarding is a smooth, steady process. Admittedly, it is an MG role to attempt to create those and I am pushing forward work on engaged governance and standards (I know!) with Gitcoin DAO. My hope is that work is not done from scratch in every single DAO and therefore avoid anyone engaging cross-DAO has to go through different patterns and forming new habits for every single different DAO they engage with.
Irrespective of the past, you have only come around now after @alisha.eth asked you personally. That is worrying. It appears as if we need a personal phone line to you; either you do not read your emails or you chose to ignore my tags. You do not log in here, that’s a certain. I am going to ignore everything else in your response simply because it is irrelevant for now.
I do not doubt your capability to steward but perhaps the lack of time that is prohibiting you to do your duty meaningfully as an elected member of the Foundation. If you are indeed short of time on account of having a foot in two DAOs and possibly more, there are scores of people here who are equally capable and also have the time. It is not a step down to resign, in my personal opinion; in your absence due to stalled progress, ENS DAO has lost human capital. However, if you still believe you can reengage with the ENS DAO meaningfully in the future as a steward starting now, I welcome @alisha.eth’s proposal for a public call where perhaps the DAO can ask some questions and also bring you up to date with what has been going around. I personally take the responsibility to give the Meta-Governance WG a summary on call and in written. I hate to tell you though, this DAO does a lot of its work in writing and here on Discourse (and also in GitHub starting yesterday).
Again, this is the first time I get a notification of you tagging - can submit a video recording of me scrolling through my notifications if that appeases you and is transparent enough?
Regarding a direct line, yes - sometimes that is needed and actually, given the rest of the context you ignored in my response, it’s sometimes the way. This is merely the reality of humans coordinating in different contexts and an understanding of this will save us all a lot of frustration as we evolve DAOs to a stage where they replace trad orgs (which is why it’s important to look at fluid governance as a model). I agree with you on the posting frequency and engagement in discussion.
I agree there are a plethora of capable, talented individuals in this space and who have a great appetite to get involved and I welcome their involvement and will discuss options in the group. Tell me more about the human capital lost on account of this? Fwiw, apart from coordinating the endowment fund RFP, everything else you highlighted is subject to a roadblock of some sort, more to come in (written) communication.
Did you get the notification 2 days ago? If yes, why wait until alisha fetches you? Here is another very important post where you are tagged (not by me) but did not warrant your response (screenshot at the end).
I am sorry, but you serve at the behest of the DAO, not the other way around. No one is going to roll a red carpet for you and call you to come around and do your job while everyone else in other WGs are doing their jobs. Do you expect special treatment? This is no philosophical debate about DAOs and trade organisations; you are simply expected to do your job.
I am waiting for your response on how you think these ↑ topics are held up (in written) and during the call. It is more than just this and that. Nice to see you engaging at least. It seems nothing gets your attention except a direct threat to your status quo. I am more than happy to have you back; that’s one out of three three days later.
The posting frequency is ~ 0 and engagement is also ~ 0, literally. You have only posted once. That alone is embarrassing to say the least; nothing makes up for it since the DAO does all its work here.
One of my concerns when the steward elections were held was that we didn’t have any actual data or metrics to use as a basis for voting.
I’d have ideally wanted stewards of workgroups to be elected by people working in the workgroups, from people working in the workgroups so that a strong focus on work could be maintained.
First election was the introduction of career stewards in my subjective vision (↔ career politicians), where some stewards made it through popularity since there was no metric-based precedent like you said. Hopefully this will change going forward. web3 doesn’t need career stewards replicating career politicians from web2.
We do have ShowKarma.xyz now thanks to @mmurthy. So there is something that fills the metric hole and it should be included in some way during next elections to let people know the amount of engagement/work their choice has put in.
Yeah, a karma-system is another thing I’ve wanted for a while now. In the original election I had also originally wanted stewards to state what their time commitment was as part of their campaign as it was clear that would become an issue.
You need to know how many hours a week the person you’re voting for is intending to actually spend working.
Better metrics and tracking will be implemented (and be mindful we still have some bugs getting ironed out) but I would like it to become a standard in steward/gov health tracking
It’s definitely not lost on me that while working on steward engagement flows, my own engagement as a steward dropped in areas. I agree with you my lack of bandwidth should have been compensated within the WG and that is something to be addressed for sure.
Re my getting “re-activated” because of a “direct threat to your status quo” or that I “expect” a red carpet is utterly erroneous as nothing I do in this ecosystem is for status. And it’s not like I was by a pool, I was doing other things for this ecosystem/personal circumstance related. I do know you don’t care in this but it is again, important context for this public forum.
Re MG areas of work, it is a reality that certain elements like bylaws and other structural considerations will simply take longer than community, ecosystem and PG. Mainly because there could be certain things that will take a little longer to be publicly shared. I do agree communication to this effect should have been shared.
(has only posted once since their election)
(has not posted since election)
