Echoing a concern raised during this week’s Meta-Governance meeting:
If the current board, which is majority-ENS Labs, nominates the expanded slate, there’s a risk of perpetuating existing relationships and bias.
I agree, and propose the following sequence to mitigate that risk:
- Confirm @AvsA’s resignation.
- Run an open nomination process via Snapshot, with a nomination threshold (e.g., 100k votes).
- Elect and appoint a new director via tokenholder vote
- Then proceed with the proposal to expand ENS Foundation directorship.
As written, the proposal puts the cart before the horse, and we shouldn’t overlook the procedural gap created by avsa.eth’s intent to vacate his seat.
—
Another point of concern raised during the meeting was that the Foundation’s mandate may be too broad from the jump:
The proposal has the board subsume operational accountability for the DAO’s core workstreams on day one. If that mandate is too broad, the alternative is a staged rollout. My concern is that, without immediate oversight, those workstreams risk drifting.
So while I’m not opposed to the board’s mandate as written, I do understand the need for the foundation to build organizational trust over time.
I’m optimistic that a well-defined, board-sanctioned governance liaison role could help address that concern.