BigBull… With all due respect, this proposal raises concerns for me.
Firstly, the timing is an issue as it was posted the morning after I released a transparency-focused AIP to help hold Working Groups and Stewards more accountable for the community as shown here: Enhancing Working Group Transparency.
Secondly, as someone who has had an AIP copy/pasted without my contact or permission, and rewritten a proposal with the expectation of being added as a co-author, but was not after multiple requests, I am particularly sensitive about anyone looking to obtain credit for proposals they were not a part of writing.
Nonetheless, I agree that there should be more discussion within the Working Groups when a member wants to put something forward independently. However, requiring co-author status for proposals that the other Stewards had no involvement with is not the solution.
I also think it’s healthy to have different ideas within Working Groups that ultimately, the community can decide on via DAO-wide vote. The key is to encourage healthy discussion like we’re able to do here – as we don’t want little wolf packs of Working Groups operating the DAO in every corner ha. Diversity and different shades of logic = good.
But lastly, there’s also a little irony here considering that this very proposal was not shared with me before you posted it 
In conclusion:
- Yes, there should be more dialogue between Stewards when a related proposal is submitted.
- No, the fate of these ideas should not be at the mercy of two people who had no involvement in writing them, nor should they be given credit as co-authors.
AC