Some delegate feedback seems to be not so much opposed to giving a Retroactive grant at all, but more so there isn’t enough context from the program managers to accurately assess who deserves it. Is there any openness @Matt_StableLab to do some type of analysis + recommendation for DAO approval? Or is this just dead and funds are going back to the DAO?
Asking simply because in terms of optics I think this situation is setting a tone towards contributors that even though we as a DAO say we will set aside funds for retroactive funding the process of actually get paid is unlikely in practice. I know value is subjective, but it feels here like the ‘no’ votes are from an administrative issue then any actual assessment of the projects. And I’d imagine it’s frustrating if you put a ton of effort into some of these things only to get a no based on operational decisions versus subject measurement of the input.