Initiative Performance
Initiative performance is a broad term, It can include multiple dimensions. We are not yet at the stage where we can say this initiative did well, this one did poorly as they are so hard to compare.
Right now we are more focused on : Are people doing the work they have said they will do? Can we check in with them to ensure they are doing the work?
(Will continue response)_
GM @AlexLumley, we appreciate the effort that has gone into this proposal, but Castle will vote against it for the reasons listed below.
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.
The work done in the past was not at the DAOās 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, etcā¦
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 proposalās 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.
I echo this comment.
At the beginning I was not really sure if I really did understand everything and also reading about a revised proposal now.
I will vote Against this propsal, but not against the idea overall.
I think a good reporting is needed and someone in charge of all DAO spendings.
We want to first thank @AlexLumley for bringing this proposal to the DAO and for your continuous communication and efforts. It is our understanding that the current plan is to use the Snapshot and community feedback to repost the proposal the week of the 12th that addresses the needs of the DAO and community. Therefore, we will vote Abstain to the current Snapshot and look forward to further discussion and feedback.
While the proposal seeks to address the important need for improved reporting and transparency, we agree with other community members that it falls short in clearly defining and justifying its scale, cost, and complexity, which appear disproportionate to the problem and its objectives. Executing on this overall goal would be valuable for long-term DAO development but also poses challenges in the need for comprehensive reporting across the entirety of the system expenses and initiatives. We look forward to this proposal evolving and addressing the need for consolidation and clarity as the DAO continues the development of the OpCo.
After being on the call and understanding that the proposal will be modified and canceled for now, I will abstain from voting until I can analyze the next version.
Voted Abstain: During the governance call, it was mentioned that this proposal will be re-published. I voted to abstain. I look forward to seeing a new, improved version of this proposal.
voting Against the current offchain proposal because this version of the proposal is not the one that the proposer wants to put forward anymore.
I voted against this version of the proposal. Looking forward for the next iteration.
As in @web3citizenxyz representation, voting Against in this proposal and bellow is our rationale.
We vote AGAINST the proposal.
We acknowledge that this version of the proposal will be updated with another proposal in the near future.
Voting āAgainstā as my understanding from posts and the call is this will be updated
FranklinDAO / Penn Blockchain voted Against this proposal. We look forward to the next iteration with a more detailed implementation process, milestones, and KPIs.
Blockworks Advisory will be voting AGAINST this proposal on Snapshot.
We share many of the concerns proposed by other delegates. To our knowledge this proposal is to be iterated on and updated.
Since this proposal is not yet complete and will be updated further, I have decided to abstain at this stage. As I previously mentioned, I find the core of this initiative really interesting, so Iām open to future discussions and look forward to a clearer and more complete version. However, I would like to emphasize that, for next time, itās important to move to Snapshot only once the proposal is fully defined in order to avoid situations like the current one. Iām looking forward to read the revised version!
We are abstaining from this proposal, despite its compelling vision for information architecture. While the core concept of addressing governance data flows is critical, the proposalās current evolutionary state makes proper evaluation challenging. We believe major initiatives should reach Snapshot only in their final, complete form.
We look forward to supporting a more detailed iteration that fully articulates the implementation framework and governance integration touchpoints.
The following reflects the views of L2BEATās governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and itās based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
Weāre voting AGAINST the proposal.
Weāve 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. Weāve also discussed the proposalās 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 itās not like we donāt 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 itās not a voluntary initiative but rather a structured process.
To support the proposal, weād expect to see a considerable decrease in the requested budget and a more narrow and clearly defined scope.
Speaking on behalf of Cornell Blockchain Governance Team, we voted against the initiative. The proposal has utility and serves to benefit the DAO by creating an active list of projects. We look forward to the updated proposal which we hope reflects a lower operating cost.
I did vote āABSTAINā to wait for a next version.
DAOplomats voted Against this proposal on Snapshot.
We agree that this is necessary, but many things felt rushed here. We also second several delegate comments regarding the funding request being bloated.
Alex, you did mention you would be working on this more during last weekās open discussion so we are looking forward to an updated proposal.
Against this proposal. Although in favour of an initiative such as this (it would definitively be extremely helpful to keep track), there is merit in citing concerns about costs. Waiting for the new updates/proposal.