I’m quite disappointed to read your message. I can understand differences of opinion, even straight and plain opposition to criticism. However, I can not understand threats.
You are correct in saying that the people accountable and the organization responsible are NOT yet members of a DAO, but as matter of fact, neither are you nor anybody else, as the Aragon DAO is yet to be launched. As voted by ANT token holders, Aragon Network DAO Charter will be terminated 15 days after enacting the new Aragon DAO Charter. A new Aragon DAO, with a new Charter that will be voted during December 2022, will be deployed.
AA teams have been working relentlessly in: a) Designing the tech deployment of a new DAO with delegate voting system that is safe to deploy, in coordination with Blossom, b) Due diligence on the legal path forward, c) Prepare the teams to transition towards the new structure, and d) executing the strategy published here, with the first steps being the release the new aragonOS (already on testnet) and the new Aragon App (on mainnet Feb-23). So, quite a bit. Some team members have double / triple Roles, as they engage both in their regular workstream and also in the Aragon DAO Transition. I don’t need to enter in evaluating their professionality, results will speak by themselves. I’ve never worked with such a professional and high-performing team.
Whenever you refer to “growing legal liability”, please be explicit towards who and the cause for that liability. Otherwise, I’d ask you not to engage with threats. We’ve got enough of those as a project, don’t you think?
The core teams at AA are perfectly aware of the limitations of the current Aragon product offering, and in fact, it is the acknowledgment of those limitations that lead to our new product strategy. See also Course of action here for more context. If dTech detects a bug in the frontend or something that doesn’t work properly in the course of their work of MaaS, they should open a support ticket so it can be solved (AFAIK that’s one of the main functions of dTech and why the guild initially was created for).
Once the heavy work regarding the steps abovementioned has been done, it will be subject to Forum discussion and after that, token holder vote. These steps can not happen whenever you want. These steps can only happen once they are completed, full stop. And meanwhile, I believe that there has been a constant and steady flow of communications to all community members via the weekly Eagle and several forum posts. Could I have been more responsive in replying comments in the Forum? Indeed! But I’m limited to the lays of physics. I can’t extend the length of day. Therefore I must prioritise my attention to the responsibilities and objectives that I have for the quarter / year. Can this be cause for “legal liability”? I doubt it.
Fortunately, that work is almost complete. As of yesterday, the smart contracts of the Delay App + TAO Voting deployment were finalized, so we can start the audit. During this month of December we will put forward the new Aragon DAO Charter for vote, so token holders can express their support / rejection regarding the proposed path forward. The vote should be set in a way that token holders can have granularity in their signalling too.
Lastly, I’m a strong believer of exit optionality. If you don’t like how something is working and don’t feel aligned any more with the Governance Framework, you are free to exit whenever you want. You can always sell your ANT and join a community that is more aligned with your values. This may be a more productive use of your time other than engaging in empty legal threats and accusations of professional negligence (which IMO could be considered cause for a permanent ban), and for sure, a way more productive use of my time (or anybody else).