I think we should move away from the term DAO entirely. It is not a useful term for people outside of this space, and even within the space it doesn’t seem to be a particularly useful distinction.
One of the issues is that “decentralized” and “autonomous” are nebulous descriptors. We don’t have a good way to define decentralization (what axis of decentralization are we talking about?, at what degree to we consider something decentralized enough?), and autonomous is similarly vague (autonomous relative to what?).
In practice I think there are two common interpretations for what a DAO is:
An organization which is “decentralized” enough to operate “autonomously” (eg it generally cannot be shutdown by an external process). Aragon organizations fit this definition quite nicely, and by linking the definition of decentralization with autonomy we resolve the lack of clarity in what is meant by “decentralization.”
A coordination or service protocol which is defined by software and coordinates the activities of agents in such a way as to reliably produce some output without requiring a centralized coordination mechanism. Examples of this are things like Proof of Work, Proof of Stake, or Decentralized Oracle mechanisms.
I think both of these things are useful, but because they both are reasonable definitions of a “DAO” but have very different properties the term “DAO” isn’t helpful. The former can be more accurately described as an “On-chain Organization” (though I don’t love this because I don’t think its particularly useful terminology outside of the blockchain ecosystem)-- And I think the latter is more aptly described as a coordination or service protocol.