Indeed. And since they are all their own independent nation states, if such a proposal to remove a steward were to ever go up, my guess is that we would run into the same problem that we did before when someone tried to reduce the Special Council salaries and was informed that the proposal was defective (returned for reconstruction) because the Ape Foundation would be in breach of contracts (those of the SC hires). Even though it literally says this could be done, and is right there in the governance docs. So, my guess is that if that’s the case with the SC, then I don’t see it being any different with the stewards; regardless of what the charter says. It’s precisely the impetus for my writing this proposal AIP-469: Ape Foundation To Clarify Ability To Terminate Contracts
The DAO inadvertently puts people into leadership positions with little to no transparency or accountability, and once there, there is no recourse other than elections which themselves are defective, controlled by whales, and periodic. Which is why my three proposals to close the three working groups is going to be precedent-setting because now it looks like they will go up for vote at some point.
That said, now the SC seems to have shoved a wrench into the works by asking that the claw back provision in my original proposal (which included all 3 WGs) be removed. You can read the original AIP-466: Proposal To Close Non-Essential Working Groups
When they asked me to recreate all of them separately, I did so, and removed the claw back provision. I have no idea what the ramifications of that would be if in fact a WG is dissolved and contracts subsequently terminated. What happens to the previous budget disbursements - if any?
In saying that however, it could be that they misinterpreted my claw back provision to mean that the stewards would have to return funds (e.g. salaries, events etc) they were already previously paid. Below is the part they asked me to remove.
To withdraw (claw back) any/all funding previously extended to the aforementioned working groups as part of their approved budget.
In reading it again, it occurs to me that I should probably have been explicit in what specifically would be subject to such a claw back. Anyway, I would assume that if the WG is dissolved, the Foundation would take steps to reconcile and recover any previously disbursed and unspent funds.