I’d propose a distinction between the output of an organisation/ organisational collective (e.g. the SourceCred protocol/product) and the collective itself. e.g. a hammer can keep existing even if the group that manufactured hammers dissipates. And hammer owners can keep talking about hammers and using hammers but that doesn’t imply a Hammers DAO exists.
So while SCRF, MetaGame, etc. can continue using the SourceCred protocol, the SourceCred org could be alive or dead.
In this case, to determine whether SOurceCRed is still a DAO, one key criterion of the organisational collective definition is the shared instances of decision making (and the attribution of said instances to the collective entity).
Applying this, SCRF using SourceCred does not entail any collective decision of SourceCred users at large, nor is the way SCRF is using the protocol attributed as a decision taken by SourceCred itself.
I understand there is still a Github repo with centralised control i.e. one or a few people decide whether to merge open source contributions (not certain this is the case but for the sake of argument I’m running with it).
If decisions are made that affect the collective (i.e. the code used by the different SourceCred users), then there are collective instances of decision making, which would validate SourceCred as an Organisational Collective.
But is it a DAO?
If there’s an aspiration to decentralise power in managing the github repo, then we could probably say that SourceCred has some degree of DAOness (decentralised contributions and an aspiration to decentralise approval of which ones get made “official”). But if the ability to make contributions to the centralised repo ceased and there was no intention to decentralise power, then it wouldn’t be a DAO.