Thank you for this proposal, Amy and Andre. I appreciate the efforts to improve SafeDAO’s governance with better-defined hierarchical structures. However, I believe we might achieve better results by forming empowered working groups that allocate resources and also actively execute the DAO’s goals.
When those who set strategy and allocate funding are separate from those who execute, we can risk misalignment and slower progress. By establishing working groups that decide on initiatives and carry them out within their scope, we can ensure accountability and a direct link between strategy and meaningful action. Examples like the ENS DAO stewards, the Compound GSWG, and other successful implementations show how smaller, focused teams strengthen governance by directly engaging in planning and implementation. Their involvement keeps them accountable and closely connected to the community’s needs.
I suggest we form such working groups in key areas like Community/Ecosystem Development and Governance. These teams should have the authority to make decisions within their scope, execute initiatives, and report transparently to the community, while also allocating resources to support community contributions in their domains. Enforcing term limits for members would be essential to avoid entrenchment here, as mentioned in feedback from a few others.
I’m interested in hearing more thoughts on this. Should we consider replacing Councils with Working Groups that not only hold key responsibilities for resource allocation and act as filtering functions but also execute specific initiatives under their aligned strategies? Perhaps some of the administrative tasks listed under the Council scope that might make the working groups’ workload burdensome with such refinements could be transferred to the Strategy Committee. This is also open for discussion.