Glad you asked for details. I meant a broader set of governance functions, not only the functions currently placed under the MetaGov Working Group.
This is the DAO-facing governance infrastructure layer: proposal process support, governance calendars and timing, delegate coordination, documentation of governance processes, governance security review for proposal execution, and public coordination between delegates, proposers, SPs, and any Foundation-side governance liaison.
I also think future governance programs such as the Delegation Incentives Program need a clear DAO-facing home for implementation updates, communication, and effectiveness tracking. One possible model could be placing these functions with a governance-focused SP such as blockful, since they are already doing some of the most important governance-related work for ENS. In that case, there may be no need to recreate a separate MetaGov WG structure.
The important point for me is separation. If the Foundation is already becoming the main executive body, governance-process functions should not also move fully inside it. These functions shape how the ownership layer(delegates and tokenholders) interacts with governance, so they should remain clearly DAO-facing and separately accountable.