Doesn’t read like you’re encouraging a retro at all from the rest of the post, strange way to open.
That’s not whats being proposed at all. Whats being proposed above is MetaGov (the org not the WG) taking a point role on the retro with myself, @Arnold and @clowes.eth contributing alongside MetaGov on the retro. However very open to changes in this group structure.
Good to see you and Nick are on the same page - More detail can certainly be added around this budget.
This is exactly why MetaGov were introduced as a neutral third party - Very open to any other contributors that you think would be most well equiped to drive this retro. Everyone has their own bias - I think we can all agree we want this retro to be as credibly neutral as possible.
I’d love to understand Labs’ position in winding down these working groups. Limes told me he was planning to run for the next election until I brought up the idea of the retro - Now we have all of Labs posting about how we need to instantly delete working groups? Why not do a retro before making any rash decisions.
Working groups have achieved incredible outcomes for the Ethereum ecosystem and ENS. A retro is a way to identify their output and tradeoffs then have a strong foundation to make recommendations going forward.
This proposal is exactly designed to identity wastage and distractions - perhaps rather than just signalling about your plenty of thoughts its better to contribute them to the DAO in public!