In a traditional company, there is a hierarchy of accountability. In a DAO, there is not. Thus far, the DAO has essentially been a free-for-all of self-interest. Let's not pretend otherwise.
I can't speak to James' motivations for pushing this review, but I think a review is sensible. I'm also very aware that intelligent contributors like Arnold and James struggle to get a metaphorical "foot in the door" without support from established delegates. The DAO is a walled garden.
Previously, Spence raised concerns about steward conflicts of interest. It was largely ignored because, frankly, everyone has massive conflicts of interest.
Limes recently posted about Service Provider presentations. The undertones were obvious, and in my opinion fair. But unless someone with the knowledge, incentives, and authority actively manages accountability, nothing happens. That should have been built into the Service Provider Program from the start.
This is a self-reinforcing feedback loop - the people proposing and pushing for change (myself included) are within the walled garden. We can (and should) have opinions, but we can't be objective or independent. For that reason there needs to be a clear delineation of authority, and stringent rules to minimise conflicts of interest. The obvious one is that stewards shouldn't be allowed to be service providers.
For both the stewards and the service providers, the question is quite simple (IMO): do they add value to ENS in excess of their cost? If they don't, the structure should change and/or they should be removed. Nothing personal.
Whilst the DAO is decentralized in its voter base, it is in no way bureaucratically efficient. I think the DAO should vote to hire a non-biased external leadership team that can implement appropriate hierarchy and accountability. It would cost money, but vastly less than the cost of current inefficiencies.
I appreciate that James is trying to put a positive spin on things, but I do not believe the following statements to be true:
“The ENS DAO launched on November 8, 2021, and since then the ENS ecosystem has experienced strong growth across a number of metrics.”
“which have led to ENS DAO being able to attract a continually growing, diverse set of contributions”
I know this whole response is blunt, but I think it's necessary. I have a lot of respect for the majority of participants within the DAO, but we need to be honest about the current state of affairs if we want ENS to succeed. We can't improve anything if we don't acknowledge the problems.