Hi @Entropy,
First, thank you for all the coordination you’ve done to date on the SOS refinement process. I know this stage is complex and that you’re balancing many different voices.
Regarding this:
Change management process
A point of process: by what authority does the Service Provider responsible for facilitating the SOS proposal’s refinement phase have legitimacy to pause or opt out of finishing the job?
Do you have consensus of a majority of delegates to do so?
I think attempting to take this decision in this unilateral way citing some private selective stakeholder feedback as justification for stopping a DAO wide process would set a harmful precent for how we govern how proposals get fulfilled and how fulfillment changes get decided and managed in the DAO.
Arbitrum DAO contributors have put huge work in the last 2-years to engineer a trusted system.
Making decisions in this way erodes trust in deterministic rules for how decisions and work gets done, it dilutes dependability and shifts the sands to more arbitrary process where engaging with the DAO and choosing to build on Arbitrum has more uncertainty and thus more risk.
People should be saying Governance at Arbitrum is rock solid, iron clad, that’s why I trust to build there.
Working with complexity
Regarding the feedback you are getting I’m hearing the opposite sentiment - both delegates and other service providers are eager to enter the refinement window, converge on a clear set of objectives, and prepare existing and new AAEs to deliver on the DAO’s will. Declaring an open-ended evaluation period with no clear resolution path effectively stalls a process that nearly 100% of the DAO voted to initiate, and introduces unnecessary uncertainty.
I appreciate that tying SOS objectives back to the Vision is critical. At the same time, we don’t need perfect Vision clarity to make progress. We could agree on a focused set of Vision questions to put to AF & OCL (who are the current bottleneck causing the delay in moving the Vision forward with clarity), we resolve these questions within a defined timeframe say, one week so the SOS team can keep moving forward. If there are specific alignment gaps, perhaps a short workshop or targeted call could close them.
I understand things change, and this process is hard, however citing a dependency on the Vision clarity to indefinitely extend/block moving forward based off some stakeholders telling you privately; that they fear stress, duplication or don’t know how to align the talent/organizational matrix to the objectives isn’t adequate explanation to stop this process.
Clear roles and responsibilities
Additionally, I’ve been surprised L2Beat has taken so much responsibility of the SOS facilitation when my understanding from the original proposal was this is Entropy’s responsibility and job to do.
What is happening here:
Are you revoking your responsibility and assigning it to L2Beat to facilitate the SOS process? This hasn’t been clear historically and it’s not clear going forward who is being responsible and accountable to facilitate the SOS process.
Is there a capacity issue, or is it a skill issue of not knowing how to facilitate the complexity of this stage of the process and needing help? if so let’s name that, call in the troops and work the problem.
Coordinating Moving Forward
After months of groundwork, we’re at the most critical juncture: defining how Vision, AAEs, and SOS interlock. It is not the time to abandon the SOS process, this is the forcing function necessary to resolve the uncertainty, unclarity also in the new Arbitrum Vision.
Extending the window indefinitely won’t resolve ambiguity; it won’t get us where we need to be, tighter coordination and clear next steps (with deadlines) will.
For Arbitrum to move forward a coherent structure for how the Vision, AAEs and SOS work together is necessary to define, that’s the work of this moment.
We don’t need more time, we need more coordination.