Appreciative of the effort that has gone into organising this @estmcmxci but as outlined on the Metagov call I do have some concerns that I that I would like to follow up on.
Context
@nick.eth is in a unique position - he built the protocol/leads ENS Labs, but is also a large delegate.
Over the past weeks I have made two requests:
- For ‘the DAO’ to clarify what they would like to see from potential Service Provider Program applicants. As ‘the DAO’ is represented by its delegates the path that seems to have emerged for this is delegates sharing their opinions. @nischal.eth has done this, and I would implore other delegates to do so as they see fit:
- For a representative of ENS Labs to provide clarity on their work on protocol development.
I think there is incredibly important nuance here. I queried this because of my desire to avoid wasted energy and duplication of effort whilst ensuring efficient resource allocation. See:
ENS Labs have historically worked on protocol level development, and are funded independently of the SPP. The new ‘Service Provider Applications’ sub tag will allow potential applicants to see what their competitors are intending to work on.
In addition to this, it would be useful for a representative of Labs to create a similar post documenting their positioning so potential applicants can work with complete information when discerning what to work on over the coming year(s).
To be abundantly clear, Labs absolutely have no obligation to do this, I personally just think that it would be useful.
If they were open to providing this information perhaps (noting that @nick.eth wears many hats) another representative of Labs could provide this insight so as to avoid confusion.
Commentary
Noting the above context I am concerned that this proposed ‘Strategy Forum’ is unclear in its intent.
I would like insight from delegates on what they would like to see from the Service Provider Program. My proposal for a sub tag to house these opinions would serve this purpose. I am not averse to a supplementary open call for all delegates (that want to) to discuss their opinions directly with potential applicants.
The initial Temp-Check: Strategy & Discussion Call (Office Hours) seems to differ in its intent to what is outlined in this post.
The original post essentially concerned working group call overflow - the topics that warrant more in depth discussion with active participation from significant ecosystem players including ENS Labs. I am massively in favour of such a call.
TL;DR - This post (and the proposed call) pertains to the Service Provider Program. This differs from the original temperature check and is, in my opinion, not appropriately open or inclusive.