[Temp Check] Expanding the ENS Foundation Board to Strengthen Operational Accountability for ENS DAO

[Arnold]

@katherine.eth

Happy to address specific questions as they’re raised (as I have been doing). If there are structural or procedural points you feel haven’t been addressed, please name them and I’ll respond directly.

IMO based on the conversation thus far, these are the open questions that need more clarity.

1. Will the Foundation formally address all points from MetaGov’s specific findings, or is it just directional?
2. Several community members have stated concerns about the composition, (I agree w/ you that boards are good)
   (a) Structurally can you share reasons for a composition of 5 directors and why other form factors (of 7, or or 9) are being rejected? Especially given lack of community representation.
3. How can the DAO have ongoing community representation (within or adjacent to the board)?
4. Many members have advocated for an incremental adoption, is this not a viable path forward in your opinion?
5. Acknowledging in advance that job descriptions are a lot of work. Could you outline (directionally) what the director’s roles & responsibilities might look like? Right now there is too much ambiguity.

ENS is a DAO, yet under this proposal in this current form there is no provided plan for how its broad constituents can have impact in this new regime.

---

Statements made by various members that formed the above opinion:

@James

Our hope is that the retro can continue, conclude and be referenced before any proposal is made to the DAO

@James

start a discussion about the selection of directors and the accountability mechanisms that exist between the DAO, Service providers and the Foundation.

@James

directorship structure with broader representation of the DAO and community:

@James

This single working group wouldn’t need to have the same kind of budget, output or composition as the existing working groups and instead is simply meant to be the most approachable organisation within the DAO.

@clowes.eth

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.

@Premm.eth

Moving that responsibility wholesale to a small board or committee is a significant shift, and should not be taken lightly.

@Premm.eth

: if we transfer funding authority for these teams to a newly funded foundation and a newly formed committee, how do we ensure that this level of decentralization and resilience is preserved?

@Arnold

Operational clarity. There needs to be a clear delineation between day-to-day operational work and structural board-level oversight.

@clowes.eth

…but that board does need a level of impartiality otherwise it’s just bureaucratic indirection i.e. a facade.

@simona_pop

Also, reducing the number of decision makers doesn’t remove politics, it concentrates it.