Centralising multiple attributes of the DAO back into Labs and an Admin panel creates heightened centralisation risk at minimum and a complete collapse of outside contribution at maximum. ENS DAO has led to countless contributions from across the ecosystem - Winding down working groups without even a clear structure of how this Admin panel would be chosen makes no sense. Limes has also signalled he wants to rush this proposal to a vote over coming days.
Luckily almost all delegates (not working at ENS Labs) have replied with similar energy, that this proposal is abrupt, rushed, sudden and doesn’t make sense to be pushed through.
Conducting a DAO wide retro on activities, spending and output (even with me completely out of this process if that makes delegates/the ecosystem more comfortalbe) before making any sudden decisions on structure makes complete sense and was resonated with at the IRL delegate all hands.
I would encourage readers and contributors to direct attention towards the ways we can focus on reflecting and being conscientious around next steps for ENS DAO, not rushing a reactive proposal through.
Completely agree with this - Thus why taking a step to reflect on what decisions have been made and to what end via a retro is so clearly the right step for the DAO here - Before we rush into decisions that will almost definitely reduce contribution and the talent pool for ENS.