What do you mean when you say a “coherent taskforce”?
IMO, we should only have a core group if we really should, but so far there are lots of compelling reasons to me. You’re right that working groups have been doing a good job at spinning up squads and project teams, however working groups also need to sync across another and that is typically done by one representative. It wouldn’t make sense for every wg member to talk to every other wg’s members to coordinate these issues, IMO that’s what stewards are for and when they talk in a group, it’s just referred to as “core”. We can debate the name but the function of working groups being represented by stewards who then sync amongst themselves makes sense to me. Also, representatives from DAO2DAO relationships and service providers also have valuable input and need to have a place and time where they get involved, as they’re usually not following our Discord 24/7 but are busy working in their own DAO/business. For that function, a core group also seems reasonable to me.
Nevertheless, we should always question the purpose of the core group and clearly define the functions it provides, but never let core become a body without function.
That’s a good point that has been discussed a couple of times before, without clear direction that we should take. This discussion led to section b) in VDP-37, for reasons which include the following:
- 10 positive votes in Discourse is very little indeed; however, most proposals barely reach these due to voter apathy. Increasing the quorum might result in the DAO becoming slower at passing proposals, if not even dysfunctional if the quorum is too high to be met accounting for voter apathy.
- Discourse polls (phase 2) are subject to one-account-one-vote, so no matter the threshold there is always the risk of creating spam accounts. Snapshot votes (phase 3) are the most reliable tool we have as they are token-weighted and therefore sybil-resistant, whereas Discourse poll aren’t.
- As a potential solution, we could merge phases 2 (Discourse) and 3 (Snapshot/token-weighted) so effectively resolve this issue, as just increasing the phase 2 quorum would arguably only resolve it partially.
- On the other hand, there is the argument to be made that we want both types of voting: a proxy to one-person-one-vote as we have it in Discourse polls, as well as a sybil-resistant token-weighted vote on Snapshot.
This is why the proposal currently suggests to keep things as they are, but this can certainly be debated.