Designing and Operating the Reporting and Information Function

[CastleCapital]

GM @AlexLumley, we appreciate the effort that has gone into this proposal, but Castle will vote against it for the reasons listed below.

1. We agree there is a need for an overall data collation process to gain better insight into the progress of DAO initiatives, but we’re not sold on the proposal in its current form. It seems to add more bureaucracy to the process than may be efficient.

There is also a lack of clarity on the final form of this report and what tangible benefits it provides the DAO to pay for the setup and its continued operations.

2. We agree with @JoJo’s point of view that the compensation for the work does not seem proportionate with the proposed scope of work of the proposal.

@JoJo

This, for reporting and oversight work, is the high side of the barrel I will be honest. I would expect a level of scrutiny that is almost at a military grade level, to be blunt. I would expect you to physically chase people who don’t answer you in telegram to get the info you need, and this is no hyperbole, cause sometimes is just so hard to get info from people in chat.

3. We also agree with @cp0x on the retroactive payment for past work

@cp0x

Retroactive $45,000 - in my opinion, this is also a lot.
Okay, you worked on the project, as well as on this proposal, but no one is asking for additional payment for writing the proposal or doing preliminary work for the main work. Everything you did before the budget was approved was solely your initiative. Of course, it is necessary to give retroactive drops for some work, but as the vote on LTIPP Retroactive Community Funding Selections showed, 60% voted against such actions.

The work done in the past was not at the DAO’s request but was undertaken as an individual initiative, and we feel it would not be appropriate to charge the DAO for uncommissioned work.

On the whole we would like to see this proposal provide more detailed information on:
a. What form will the reporting take?
b. How will it consolidate information?
c. What are the roles and scope of Powerhouse and Lumen?
d. What is the expected ROI whether in terms of efficiency, savings, etc…

Considering that the OpCo is in the process of being started, we would support the proposal if it positioned it as a temporary role of an operations administrator or group-wide project manager whose role is to consolidate status from the different working groups.

The proposal’s scope should be updated to present a more simplified and direct case. We would be more supportive in that instance. Thanks again for the proposal, definitely needed just not in its current format.