Alex, thank you again for the proposal. For now, I will vote against this proposal for the reasons detailed below.
The first thing I want to address is that we’ve recently observed deviations from the social consensus regarding the timing for posting proposals on Snapshot. The last three proposals were posted on a Friday, and in particular, this one was modified in substantial aspects—such as the budget, responsibilities, and executors—on the same day it was moved to Snapshot.
Although there is no rule preventing proposals from being posted on Snapshot immediately after being edited, I believe that when the text undergoes substantial changes, a TL;DR of the modifications should be provided, and the proposal should remain open for some time (72 hours?) for review. This would allow time to address any new questions or concerns before it reaches the binary decision phase on Snapshot. I’m not sure if formalizing this as part of the DAO’s social consensus is necessary, but I do think it helps structure the discussion more effectively.
Now, regarding the proposal itself:
First, I find myself much more aligned with the structure of this version compared to the original draft. This proposal focuses more on the design and implementation of a comprehensive reporting and tracking system for proposal execution, which is a valuable contribution to the DAO.
However, to be fair and to have the adequate context for the proposal, a reporting system currently exists. Proposals have objectives, milestones that are posted in the forum, updates from the Foundation (sometimes replaced by yourself for the last months) during various calls, and bi-weekly reporting and feedback sessions for each initiative. While time-consuming, it is possible to stay informed about ongoing developments.
That said, this process can certainly be made more efficient, and I appreciate the idea of having an integrated platform to access information about proposal execution. My main concern is the cost-benefit tradeoff.
Like @JoJo , I’m not fully convinced by the budget.
My first question is:
What is the rationale behind this comparison and estimated cost?
Although not the same, the reports from Token Flow regarding the DAO’s expenses and related insights currently cost $6,650 USD per month.
This proposal has a minimum cost of approximately double that amount, not including additional costs if the DAO approves the buffer and discretionary work fund.
Can the differences between these be clarified? Additionally, I’d like to know if there’s a plan to integrate or unify both reports in some way, as the information from one provides context and is relevant for oversight.
The first GRC call took place on August 28th. Why are you considering the entire month of August for the retroactive payment?
Additionally, could you detail the tasks carried out that justify a retroactive payment of $9K per month? I might be missing something, but as far as I understand, the task has been to host the monthly reporting call.
In this regard, I am quite aligned with Jojo’s feedback in all its aspects, so I’ll quote it here:
Regarding the execution of the proposal, I recommend removing the advisory committee. I think it’s great that the PM can rely on delegates and the foundation for advice and feedback in designing the reports. However, having such a structure will only add bureaucracy and create an unnecessary sense of dependency. The PM should have full ownership and responsibility for a task of this nature.
Once again, thank you very much for the proposal.