The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and it’s based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
We’re voting AGAINST the proposal.
We’ve had many discussions with Alex about this proposal on a higher level ever since we passed over the monthly call to him, and it started turning into the reporting one. We’ve also discussed the proposal’s specifics with him and other delegates on several occasions.
Overall, we believe the proposed work has merit, and the initiative is needed in the DAO right now for the same reasons described in the proposal itself. Many initiatives are happening simultaneously for delegates to keep track of while also following active discussions and upcoming proposals. Having a dedicated party working on establishing a reporting standard and cadence while also coordinating the initiative leads and ensuring the process is smooth is a very appealing proposition and is absolutely necessary in order to establish proper project management for the initiatives we fund.
That said, after reviewing the proposal, we need help justifying the associated costs with the workload and the amount of time and effort it would require. As things stand, the requested budget for the base salary and bonus is orders of magnitude higher than it should be for the amount of work to do. Also the work could be described more precisely as it’s not like we don’t know what is needed and how it should be executed, we have lots of experience and most of those things are already being run in a limited capacity, we just need to make sure that it’s not a voluntary initiative but rather a structured process.
To support the proposal, we’d expect to see a considerable decrease in the requested budget and a more narrow and clearly defined scope.