AIP-466: Proposal To Close Non-Essential Working Groups

[Lost]

@VonFrontin

Dissolve working groups: Minimal to no impact on facilitating, reviewing and putting AIPs up to vote.

Dissolve SC: Will need new mechanism for functions that occur in Admin Review. Potential for AIP disruption without replacement process.

I just hope that throughout those coordinated yet disjointed proposals the DAO understands what the new DAO looks like.

These two things are quite separate since the GWG decided to completely separate from any critical DAO operations .

Dissolve WGs: no impact on AIP process.

Dissolve SC: not sure exactly what this proposal would look like yet, but the Administrative Review phase has always been optional, based on how it was originally written in AIP-1. If the DAO adopts new guidelines as part of a governance revamp then this would be fairly easy to address, in terms of moving forward with the lowest amount of risk, but without more context of the proposal - any other comments I have would mostly be opinions.

Continuing the discussion from AIP-1: Proposing the DAO - Process:

@btang

Phase 5: Post-Moderation Tagging

• Pending AIPs that have passed AIP Moderation will then either be tagged as “Straight to Vote” or “Needs Administrative Review”’ as each term is defined and described in this Proposal.
• The “Straight to Vote” tag is given for any pending AIP whose costs, content, and implications are considered to be straightforward and of no risk to the well-being of the DAO. Any Pending AIP that is tagged as “Straight to Vote” will skip to Phase 7.
• The “Needs Administrative Review” tag is given for any pending AIP whose costs, content, or implications are considered to be complicated or a potential risk to the well-being of the DAO. Any Pending AIP that is tagged as “Needs Administrative Review” must go through Phase 6.