0x9e0e9d25…57b1sent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#24,174,860·view on Etherscan
steward-of-technical-exploration@0xae47...5Fed
Totally fair feedback, and I get why you’re asking for a stricter list. Ambiguity is usually how roles slowly turn into vibes-based authority, and I’m trying to avoid that outcome rather than create it.
The reason I didn’t enumerate a fixed list of systems is that the DAO’s stack and operational surfaces change over time. Any explicit checklist will go stale quickly, and then access ends up being arbitrarily blocked just because something new or migrated wasn’t named in the proposal. That tends to reintroduce ambiguity in practice, even if it looks precise on paper.
What I can do instead is tighten the language around **scope and exclusions** rather than naming every surface. That means defining access by category and purpose, and being very explicit about what this does not grant. No funds movement, no policy enforcement, no unilateral or irreversible actions, and no decision-making authority. Admins still control scope and duration, so access stays bounded without becoming brittle.
Also, appreciate the vouch. I’ve mostly tried to keep things running quietly and out of the way, and this proposal is really about making that kind of contribution legible without turning it into an obligation or an unofficial role with expectations attached.
>
>
> +1 for this prop but to Vote for I think it needs to explicitly list *exactly* the things you want/need access to (and what it does not grant you access to), so that there is zero ambiguity there.
>
> I like this as granting access to tech stack, can vouch for nekofar.eth as someone who just does useful "stuff" without asking (Lil Nouns functioned throughout 2025 thanks to this guy)
>
> "Doing nothing is explicitly allowed" 😸
>
@0xbE95...3E57
I think that concern is already addressed in the proposal, but maybe not in a single sentence that’s easy to spot.
The access scope is broad at the *definition* level on purpose, but it’s explicitly constrained at the *execution* level. Access is always granted under existing admin or maintainer privileges, scoped by them, time-bound if they choose, and revocable at any point. Nothing in the proposal creates standing access, permanent rights, or anything that bypasses admin judgment.
The key distinction I’m trying to make is that the proposal mandates **permission to request and receive access**, not permission to self-assign it. Admins retain full control over scope, duration, and revocation, and that discretion is explicitly preserved throughout the text. In other words, “minimum necessary scope” is already the default behavior, even if it’s not phrased as a single rule.
The intent is to remove ambiguity about whether access *can* be granted, not to weaken the caution around *how* it’s granted.
>
>
> Thoughtful open source aligned role, but access scope is unusually broad. Would support with clearer guardrails.
>
> I'd lean FOR with an inclusion along the lines of: "All access granted under this role should default to the minimum necessary scope and duration, and may be revoked at any time at admin discretion without cause"
>
Thanks for the feedback. Just to clarify, the proposal already assumes access is always scoped, granted under existing admin or maintainer privileges, and revocable at any time. The breadth is intentional at the definition level so it doesn’t go stale, but execution is constrained by admin judgment.
If that distinction is clear now, we’re probably aligned.