Thanks to everyone who has engaged with this proposal, particularly @netto.eth, @clowes.eth and @estmcmxci. The discussion across the forum and MetaGov calls has been super valuable in moving the DAO forward! We want to make sure we get this to a vote quickly and give stewards the clarity they need to move forward. I also know @clowes.eth is working on another* WG proposal which we assume we will be supportive of - but given @netto.eth’s recent post re WG timelines I wanted to get a reply up here.
On structure - One WG vs two
The original proposal called for a single consolidated WG combining MetaGov and Public Goods/Ecosystem functions. Based on the feedback, a two-WG model - a MetaGov WG as a neutral governance layer between the Foundation and the DAO, and a separate Ecosystem/Public Goods WG to continue the builder engagement and grants momentum the current Ecosystem WG has built.
On timeline
We’re aligned with @netto.eth’s proposed path forward. The WG Restructure snapshot vote needs to conclude by May 31 for the outcome to shape Term 7, meaning a vote will need to be up on snapshot by the 26th of May. If it doesn’t, the fallback activates and Term 7 runs under the current three-WG structure. FireEyes will post the onchain proposal within the next week.
Currently we’re working under the assumption that either: @clowes.eth’s will get a proposal up over the coming days that we support or we’ll add further specification to this temp check to be able to get a vote on a new WG structure up by the 26th Please share any remaining feedback ASAP!