Thank to the Org Design Workstream for all of the hard work putting this together. From all of the research and consideration you folks have put into this whole process, this post lays out really clearly your vision for the DAO transition.
Regarding the development of the Core Development Org - Starting with an open call for interested parties is a good place to start, but I am worried about adequate & equal representation at this level and adaptability over time. Also more generally - the feedback loop/checks & balances between Orgs & Teams.
Deciding who should be at this level will be difficult. There may be folks who are better positioned than others to sit at the Org level, but might be limited in ability to commit time & effort or may be uninterested in participating. Interest-based is a good model as it allows for folks who have the time and able to contribute the effort to participate, but could also cause issues with people who have interest but might not sticking to commitments required at this level. I would be curious to discuss how fluid this group of people is over time - are there set terms (e.g. quarterly/annually?), how are people voted on/off the Org level? I realize the governance of the Org level will be discussed by the Core Dev Org Working Group, but I wanted to already mention this here as I think how we manage the “who decides”, “who decides who decides” & “how do we change who decides” between these different layers will be important for credibility & sustainability.