Hmm, not sure. This proposal is supposed to be a continuation of [Temp Check] Working Group Restructure, but it became a very different proposal. There are also some discussions happening on Path forward on Working Group elections for Term 7 which are closer to what @James initially proposed.
Correct, and I’m participating on a personal capacity, it’s been a while there is no statement directly from metagov as a WG due to low internal engagement.
Now focusing on the proposal itself. A big challenge I see is attracting more specialized talent if the role is to manage ecosystem, public goods and governance scopes within the same group. I can see a lot (including myself) would candidate themselves to be part of a governance WG but not for Ecosystem or PG.