As someone who has known and served alongside you over that time period, and also held the secretary role, I believe your opinion here is valuable. I think the intentions of this proposal are good; however, I’m not at the place where I would certainly vote for it.
I was initially very strongly opposed to the initial DAO retro because the motives were unclear (to me), it seemed hasty and I did not believe the oversight would be sufficiently neutral to be effective. After the discussions in Buenos Aires, and in the inclusion of Metagov (w/Eugene Levanthals involvement) I felt much better about this pathway.
I do believe the cost and time required to do a retrospective review of operations over the past four years could be beneficial to designing a new structure or organizational format to better serve the DAO in the future. It would also be an opportunity to set a positive example.
If a retro was progressed, I assumed you would be a critical person to take part in that process considering your secretary role.
To get me over the line for this temp check I need:
- To be ensured this isn’t capture by another name/design. For example, what does a candidate for administrator look like and how are we mitigating CoI since thats a chief problem now?
- More separation of Labs from the DAO finances. They shouldn’t oversee streams, the endowment or any DAO treasury multi-sigs based on principle.
- To be better sold why we should be doing this now (and quickly) instead of after the retrospective? I’m not sure why skipping a pause + retro is advantageous. This temp check, as well as many other outcomes, post-retro could be viable.
I would support some combination of:
- Full pause
- Partial Pause
- Retrospective
- Temporary group to oversee review or reform
As someone who has been involved here since the start of the DAO, I very much want us to make improvements that curb ineffective spending, mitigate capture/mismanagement, but not in a way that feels like a race.