Thanks @shane for starting up this topic and for the desire to keep iterating on clarity around our DNA.
DAOs are as much a social contract as an autonomous system built on blockchains. That social contract generally evolves with the energy of the community. The idea listed here is something we probably all broadly agree on and in some ways is trying to litigate on a lesson that has already been taken by the people involved. I think the best course of action is to take that lesson and assume positive intent that we will make the right adjustment, without having to codify things in real time.
Ultimately I lean towards rough consensus. If people felt this was something that needs to be codified then I’d expected to see more support (via seconding and adding and liking). Given there hasn’t been much engagement, my interpretation is that people trust PNF to set clearer expectations when operating DAO funds in future, or they don’t think it’s a big deal.
But that’s just my interpretation. If people now want to add their support to this type of action - great! Here’s your chance.
And fwiw if that does happen, a proposal probably isn’t needed anyway. The social contract is an incredibly important part of how we try to steward the project, and 50 thumbs up in support for this topic would be enough for PNF to pick it up and carry it forward, whether it’s a formal proposal or not