Hey everyone just want to to note here what I said on the metagov call today:
I support the direction of this proposal, but I propose two changes:
- Open Nominations
There should be some mechanism for an open nomination process. This is important for the legitimacy of the process.
The existing board and ENS Labs can produce their candidates, but other people should be able to as well. I think some basic rules like “the nominee must have the endorsement of 100k tokens” (the same to put a proposal to vote) could filter out most noise. I’m open to other rules as well, and I’m confident we can have an open nomination process that is still orderly.
- Board Composition
The existing proposal has five board seats, two of them filled by ENS Labs. I’m concerned this creates a perception of DAO capture by the entity that is its biggest recipient of funding.
My counter proposal: Still five board seats, one is a permanent seat for Nick Johnson as the creator of ENS, and the remaining four are open to be filled by the DAO in the nomination/voting process. I believe this takes into account many of Katherine’s legitimate arguments above while maintaining better neutrality.
My Vote
I support the direction of Katherine’s proposal. However, in it’s current form I would vote AGAINST. But if the above changes were made, I’d publicly support it and vote FOR.