gives proposers and delegates a clear entry point into governance
keeps the open weekly call where anyone can raise topics and get a hearing
sits as a neutral layer between the foundation and the DAO, not absorbed by either
a full time, permanent governance/operations person at the foundation
gives the DAO institutional memory across steward rotations
handles the ongoing operational work that part-time stewards can’t sustain
absorbs the duties of secretary and scribe work, which can be largely automated by AI notes and refined by this person
a working group to support the ENS ecosystem and impactful public goods
builder demos and shared learning that drive ENS adoption
proactive outreach to ENS builders instead of waiting for inbound
preserves the momentum the Ecosystem WG has built instead of restarting year one
In this new structure there are still some questions:
with the full time role absorbing operational duties, steward compensation can be revisited and likely lowered
the boundary between the full time role and metagov WG needs to be defined before both are operating, otherwise we get overlap (two parties doing the same work) or gaps (neither owning something). @katherine.eth would be good to hear more and to have some clarity here.
WGs keep the DAO open and reachable, they create value. What I see missing:
documentation and onboarding so a new steward isn’t starting from zero
clearer scope per WG, including what is explicitly out of scope
an easier path to remove stewards (2/3 internal WG vote would be sufficient, while maintaining >= 50% of all stewards as an alternative)
KPIs and goals tied to each WG’s specific mandate (for ecosystem: builder engagements; for metagov: proposal cycle time, delegate participation)
some working group being more responsible for growth in some capacity. I feel that the growth and revenue subject is under discussed and deserves more attention and action.
Appreciate @James moving this discussion forward. Now we need to refine the structure, state exactly how the WG rules change and put it to a vote.
Yeah, the more I think about it, the more it makes sense to have a separate working group for this. But does the WG need its own multisig, or is it enough for it to be a coordination/onboarding hub for ENS developers?
We already have strong momentum with the weekly ENS x AI calls—why not continue that and “promote” the group to a DAO-sanctioned, ecosystem-focused venue?
Which brings another question to mind: should stewards of a WG also be responsible for allocating grants, or should there be a separate entity responsible for that?
—
TBF, I think mixing stewardship responsibilities with grants distribution increases the COI surface.
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.
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!
