We appreciate @Andre and @amy.sg’s proposal and agree in principle with the need for a more structured governance model.
At this stage, the Safe ecosystem may lack the maturity to effectively manage the operational complexity that the Councils and Committees architecture discussed in the related thread introduces—the separation of decision-making and execution offering limited benefits compared to the associated costs of complexity. While such governance models can be effective in more developed environments, implementing them prematurely risks introducing unnecessary bureaucracy, potentially hindering progress. Instead, simpler and more adaptive governance structures would better address the ecosystem’s current needs by integrating faster decision-making with execution, maintaining agility as Safe evolves.
We acknowledge that the current proposal focuses on the general need to establish a governance framework, rather than on the specifics of its design. In line with this goal, we propose introducing task-specific Working Groups as a flexible and practical approach to governance. These groups would address key challenges and focus areas, starting with the ecosystem’s most pressing needs. Each group would have a clearly defined scope and set of responsibilities, operating under a six-month term followed by a re-election process. As @auryn mentioned, such a term limit on delegates could be beneficial and we think this should extend to Working Groups. This structure ensures accountability by requiring a renewed vote of confidence for each term, thereby incentivizing performance and promoting a results-driven environment. A relevant example of this model can be found in ENS DAO which is currently structured in three working groups. These groups have clear focus areas and accountability around strategy and execution, making ENS one of the few DAOs which have managed to create value while maintaining a reasonable degree of decentralisation consistently.
For establishing governance structures, karpatkey suggests that each group’s term, resources, KPIs, and scope be clearly defined in advance. Subsequently, candidates could be evaluated based on their relevant experience and technical capabilities. In essence separating the role formation decision from the staffing one. This approach would enhance decision-making and foster a meritocracy culture.
Conclusion
We support the migration to a more structured governance framework. However, we believe the example used in the proposal is too complex for Safe’s current stage of development. In our view, Working Groups with specific goals, accountability, and term limits would better serve Safe’s immediate needs while being more flexible and agile.
We look forward to collaborating with the Safe team to shape how this governance structure evolves, laying a solid foundation for future grow