I appreciate the fact that this proposal brings a lot of important discussions that are needed.
Taking this action seems abrupt, it’s a huge change in the structure without a wider effort on evaluating what we can learn from and improve.
For me it would be more natural to evolve to current structure, and experiment with new rules that expand the contributor base, disincentivizes political behavior and etc.
The working group rules amendments was one tentative on that direction, in which you weren’t supportive of that. It’s curious to me that when a change is proposed, it’s such a dramatical one.
Working groups do a lot of good and make the DAO incredibly accessible. Yes, there are a lot of things to improve:
- change culture to more easily change contributors when internal disruption is happening/not enough time available or effort for the role. Or perhaps a conflict resolution policy as @vegayp mentioned would be helpful.
- setting clearer goals for WGs. But for that we also need DAO-wide goals and direction
- more accountability and reports to the DAO
- onboarding documentation
- the amendments for me are a necessary step for increasing contributor base and disincentivizing political behavior.
If this goes live, I’ll be voting against. I could be in favor of changing the structure and dissolving the WGs, but after trying to improve them, assess and iterate more. We need to have shorter feedback loop and experiment more. Otherwise we only gonna change things to completely new structures, and learn nothing about it.