[Temp Check] ENS DAO Coordination Layer

[James]

Overall we’re supportive of this proposal as an potential path forward for the Working Groups, primarily because of the level of energy/care that has gone into this proposal compared to any others. Right now the options presented are:

• My post which outlines (not in full proposal format) two possible working groups; Ecosystem/Public goods and MetaGov (after discussion).
• Nettos post which outlines running a vote in the next 48 hours that will only let voters choose between keeping WGs as they are and having only one working group.
• This post from @clowes.eth which has significantly more detail and reads as a genuine step forward, despite this proposal also having its fair share of tradeoffs, it is at least a step forward rather than a default path.

Re some of the above comments:

@Coltron.eth

This proposal creates net-new responsibilities (expanding the DAO) while at the same time concentrating the work onto the shoulders of three people who are expected to contribute part time.

Details on the operational oversight of the endowment is inexplicably absent. Was this forgotten?

• I agree that net-new responsibilities are being defined here but don’t think thats a bad thing.
• If the number of people is the issue then there could be elections for 2 or 3 more seats on this org?
• Re the operational oversight of the endowment, +1 that seems like good scope for this group.

@netto.eth

It’s becoming more and more complex to understand and discuss the structures with so many proposals. It feels more intuitive for me doing a more gradual and smaller change so we have more time to first define and pass the foundation proposal, the Retro roadmap implementation and then perhaps change more the structure to collaborate with the Foundation and other parts.

We recently have already changed the SPP a lot and with a new committee. Changing is good, but depending on how, it also can be disruptive for the learning process, and create contributor fatigue.

My expectation from what was discussed on the Metagov calls was a very lean proposal, this is a larger change.

Agree that this proposal adds more complexity than simply continuing on as we are but I would argue it’s the perfect time to deal with this complexity so we can build a better and more functional DAO. Yes we have multiple proposals in flux atm, but we should still be aiming to take the best steps we can as opposed to opting for the default.

---

There are a number of ongoing discussions on the best path forward for working groups - This temp check (at minimum) is more thought-out and provides a clearer path forward than any existing proposal or post. For this reason we support this proposal and think having this included in a vote on all potential paths forward makes sense.