I think the adjusted scope of at-risk members is clearer, provides real value to the ecosystem, and is worth supporting.
But as a general outsider’s view, I think a few points need attention
1. budget transparency: budget adjustments are good, but the oversight committee must ensure that every dollar is clearly spent to avoid waste.
2. Reduced roles: Eliminating unnecessary roles improves efficiency, but key positions must not be missing to avoid jeopardizing project progress.
3. Linking workload to remuneration: a flexible retention model is good, but it has to be ensured that there is someone to supervise it, so that no one can just get paid and not work, and the quality of work has to be kept up.
The most important thing is the feedback mechanism, supervision mechanism. I see accountability mentioned in many reports.