[Temp Check] Working Group Restructure

Which functions are these, exactly—can you enumerate them?

I attend the calls weekly, and I’m not sure what “MetaGov-style functions” you’re referring to.

I assume you mean @kpk’s weekly Endowment review, and maybe broader discussion of proposals.

I think a single Working Group can include those functions and the functions @James described above.

This is a good question, but my understanding is that the Foundation proposal aims to assume all Working Group responsibilities and wind down the Working Groups.

So we shouldn’t wait for a Foundation proposal to define what the Working Group restructure is allowed to do. We should define that now—clearly and explicitly.

Then, if there are overlaps or conflicts, proponents of the Foundation proposal can call out their red lines and we can resolve them directly.

In short: set our structure first, then negotiate overlap.

I’m all for this, and I believe that we’d all love to see it happen. Your initial ideas are a great start, and I’d love to see a more robust, operationally-specified iteration.

Some suggestions to amend the temp check:

  1. Add a clear scope and mandate with specific responsibilities and boundaries.
  2. Add a transition plan (avsa’s suggestion is a good start).
  3. Set hard defaults (weekly calls, $25k cap, reporting cadence) instead of placeholders.
  4. Define metrics (contributor throughput, decision latency, grant cycle speed, participation).
  5. Specify an escalation/resolution path when WG/Foundation responsibilities conflict — my 2c is that the Governance Liaison role could help bridge here.