# \[RFC\] - Alastor | w3s - Create a UNI-ARB Working Group **URL:** \ **Category:** Requests for Comment\ **Created:** [June 3, 2023, 10:28pm UTC](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-alastor-w3s-create-a-uni-arb-working-group/21376 "2023-06-03T22:28:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 8
**Author:** ![coltron.eth](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/gov.uniswap.org/coltron.eth/32/7655_2.png) [@coltron.eth](https://gov.uniswap.org/u/coltron.eth)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2023, 4:49pm UTC](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-alastor-w3s-create-a-uni-arb-working-group/21376/8 "2023-06-20T16:49:39Z")
This RFC’s spirit promises to offer value to both the Uniswap and Arbitrum communities. The cross-protocol relationships and emphasis on establishing processes with accountability in mind are beneficial. Unfortunately, establishing WG0, the associated nomination and elections, and the creation of two subgroups will be a cumbersome process requiring a dedicated attention span. Also, as proposed, it’s not until [week eight](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-alastor-w3s-create-a-uni-arb-working-group/21376#timeline-13) that the sub-working groups will establish key deliverables and budgets. This timeline poses a risk for decision-making based on sunk costs in an already complex process. Despite my concerns about execution as proposed, I am interested in the intention. 1. To me, where this RFC stands out is the creation of [protocol delegates](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-alastor-w3s-create-a-uni-arb-working-group/21376#h-1-protocol-delegates-9). _Would you consider simplifying this proposal to encompass that mission solely?_ 2. _Is this merely being shepherded by Alastor and web3 Studios, or do you foresee your organization(s) having dedicated seats on these working groups?_ --- _[View the full topic](https://gov.uniswap.org/t/rfc-alastor-w3s-create-a-uni-arb-working-group/21376)._