Hello Zach, thank you for including me in this!
Sorry, this response isn’t totally directed at you it just inspired a rather large write up so bear with me. 
Currently every AIP falls under 1 of 4 categories: Core: Ecosystem Fund Allocation, Core: Brand Decision, Informational, or Process.
Instead of creating subcommittees and fractured working groups, I’m starting to think about what a “Core Team” within the ApeCoin DAO might look like. I want us to start thinking about creating at least 2 “Core Units” or committees within the DAO.
1. “Core: Ecosystem Fund Allocation: Proposals for how DAO funds should be utilized”
A working group committee led by one council member which would be responsible for aiding proposals that fall under this category.
So when a bug bounty is proposed and we need a group of dedicated individuals to scope severity of submissions and liason with whitehats these DAO members are the first choice. Or if we’re paying Cartan to scope out sending funds back into the DAO and we need some community members along for transparency and reporting, this is the committee the team would go to in order to fulfill these duties. In the future, and if within scope, this would also be the team responsible for allocating the initial funding to any potential “Treasury Management” or “revenue earning arm” / committee of the DAO.
2. “Core: Brand Decision: Proposals for aything the DAO attaches its name to, included projects and collaborations”
This committee, also led by one Special Council member, would be responsible for aiding proposals in this category.
So when ETH SF is happening and we need people to go and create promotional materials for the booth and present prizes to the hackathon winners, this is the group the AIP Author leverages for this need. Or whenever we need any ApeCoin representation in person at events, we should have a dedicated team of individuals for this.
A big problem with all of this is finding raw volunteers. It’s my opinion that community members should be paid for what would essentially be full-time work obligations. Starting the conversation around these two working groups first, I think, is a good first step towards having more active contributors and more meaningful DAO initiatives.