[Temp Check] Metagov Update: Working Group Operations During the ENS Retro

[slobo.eth]

Done

[lefterisjp]

I don’t have an opinion here as I am not actively involved in governance anymore. If you need help passing a proposal ofc just ping me in TG, I can help as i still have some sticky delegations.

[estmcmxci]

@netto.eth

As @nick.eth mentioned, we still need a proposal to better define elections, steward compensation, and related items

Queue it up, let’s get this on the docket for the next All Hands.

[liubenben]

Thanks for the nudge — clearly this one took me a moment to catch up

[blockful]

Live proposal calldata security verification

This proposal is live!

Calldata executed the expected outcome. The simulation and tests of the live proposal can be found here.

It can be checked by cloning the repo and running:
forge test --match-path "src/ens/proposals/ep-6-29/*" -vv

[Limes]

There isn’t enough USDC in the Treasury (505k USDC) to execute this transaction (959k USDC).

[netto.eth]

Superfluid withdrew 616k with the AutoWrap functionality. Chatting with KPK to see how we get this proposal executed asap.

At the time when the proposal was posted and tested (block 24293146), there was sufficient USDC.

[daostrat.eth]

@daostrat.eth

Target Date for Term 7 Elections: April 1, 2026 (not a joke)

Barring any new proposal to the contrary, Metagov will initiate the Term 7 steward nomination and election cycle on April 1, 2026, immediately following the conclusion of the ENS Retro. The election schedule will follow standard procedures:

MG update on Elections.

When we wrote this post in January, we estimated the Retro would be wrapping up around this time, which is why we pointed to April 1, 2026 as the target date for elections to begin. As things have progressed, it has become clear the Retro needs more time to land. After reflecting on this, we felt it would not be right to move elections forward while that work is still ongoing, and that this is a conversation the community should be part of rather than a call MetaGov makes on its own.

We are in an edge case in interpreting the current situation, which involves pausing elections for the retro and the retro running longer than expected.

We are not cancelling elections. We are flagging that we believe a short delay tied to Retro completion may be warranted, and asking the community whether they agree.

Open questions

• Should we have a deadline to initiate elections, even if there is no result from Retro
• In addition, thoughts on current steward end dates?

[estmcmxci]

Hey, I think it makes sense to let the retro wrap up and allow @mikemetagov et al. to offer recommendations.

They’re slated to present on April 10th, so perhaps we can extend Term 6 to May 2026, and allow Term 7 elections to run thereafter, depending on the status of [Temp Check] Expanding the ENS Foundation Board to Strengthen Operational Accountability for ENS DAO.

[Sov]

Wanted to chime in here with my perspective on these questions:

To the first question: yes, there should be a hard deadline. The original Retro proposal said “up to 4 months, moving elections to ~March 2026” and we’re now past that. I’d suggest setting a fixed date (no later than June 1?) for nominations to open. The Retro findings can still inform the next term’s priorities even if they land after elections begin.

On steward end dates: current stewards should continue serving until successors are seated. The community approved a 4 month extension, not an open ended one.

From the Public Goods side, we have active grant commitments and builder relationships that benefit from continuity. The longer we operate without an election timeline (if they are happening at all), the harder it becomes to plan for both current obligations and handoff to the next term.

[estmcmxci]

@Sov

To the first question: yes, there should be a hard deadline

I think the hard deadline should be June 1. By then, the DAO will have either:

• retained the current Working Group structure
• transitioned to a new structure, guided by a co-created reform
• transitioned to a new structure, as proposed under the board extension proposal

If neither transition path reaches resolution, we default to the current structure and hold elections June 10–15, with Term 7 stewards beginning July 1, 2026.

In this case, I’d suggest setting the term length to 6 months, to preserve continuity with the 1-year terms beginning in 2027, as specified by EP 4.8

[estmcmxci]

Update: On this month’s Delegate All Hands, @James floated an alternative idea: collapsing the existing structure into a single “Ecosystem Lite” WG (micro‑grants + weekly calls) to run alongside any new foundation structure. However, there is no clear consensus yet.

It also seems there is little appetite to use the proposed Advisory Body as a mechanism to transition the DAO into a new structure, so I’d say we should not stall delivery of Phase 3 and should allow @mikemetagov to deliver the final report.

Lastly, because @katherine.eth’s temp check appears to have no definitive timeline, my view is that—absent a clearly ratified alternative in time—we should continue to plan to renew the current WG structure on June 1 so operations don’t stall, while continuing to iterate on reforms in parallel.