This statement is somewhat bemusing to me. The ENS DAO is iteratively moving in the direction of improving accountability across the board. The SPP Committee seeks to provide accountability to the Service Provider Program and this proposal seeks to add accountability and operational transparency to general DAO coordination through the mechanisms outlined in the proposal itself.
Many of the issues identified in the Retro - fragmented communication, accountability vacuum, burnout concentration, lack of implementation capacity, and weak operational continuity - are precisely the types of issues this proposal is attempting to improve incrementally.
This proposal is for a coordination layer. It is absolutely not the DAO, but rather a lean operational body intended to help surface, coordinate, and operationalize the wants and needs of DAO participants.
I also disagree with the implication that coordination infrastructure is somehow separate from accountability and transparency infrastructure. In practice, regular public coordination, operational continuity, initiative ownership, transparent reporting, and documented execution pathways are themselves important components of accountable governance systems.
You referenced my statement that:
“The core premise is that ENS DAO’s primary bottleneck is increasingly operational coordination and execution rather than ideation,”
I feel that the Retro itself is a prime example of this. The lack of public engagement with the publication of your final report and the lack of a clear implementation pathway for the roadmap is indicative of the DAO’s current execution and coordination problems.
Should this proposal pass, it seems entirely pragmatic for the Coordination Layer to host an in-depth public discussion around the Retro report and, should there be generalized support from DAO participants, facilitate bringing on the appropriate expertise to help operationalize and implement parts of its roadmap.
This aligns closely with what the Retro Final Report itself states:
“The immediate priority is therefore to close the ‘readiness gap’ by building the enabling political, procedural, and facilitative infrastructure that can carry the existing roadmap from paper into practice.”