In December 2025 I posted From Stagnation to Structure: Fixing ENS Governance.
It is my opinion that both @brantlymillegan and @katherine.eth have written proposals that take elements of that proposal, but fail to add any real color to the areas that need color - namely, who makes up the board/committee/leadership team. Not the type of people that could but rather actual names, because ultimately the viability of these proposals rests on the actual people.
There is constant reference to bias to action and the time sensitive nature of these things, yet respectfully neither proposal author contributed publicly to the conversation on my proposal that was made when there was not a time constraint.
I think that @James response on behalf of FireEyes is fantastic (although it would be remiss of me not to note that he also didn’t respond to my proposal in December). I broadly agree with his positioning.
ENS Labs are a team made up of the original protocol developers, and have a well deserved positioning in the context of the ENS DAO. That said, thus far to all extents and purposes they have operated completely independently of the DAO - the DAO which in principle ultimately controls them. Apart from the updates that Greg gives on Ecosystem call (which are fantastic might I add), the DAO gets updates on ENSv2 at the same time as the public. It is incredibly difficult to coordinate efforts and move ENS forward when the biggest contributor does so in a black box, and only provides larger updates quarterly (which I must acknowledge are very good).
A ‘board’ has merit if it’s intention (and ENS Labs having two seats) is to fix these failings and actually implement true coordination of technical, marketing, and product direction.