We’re quite skeptical of this proposal as it stands, though haven’t particpated in previous rounds of feedback.
First, the current site and seems clearly out of date and missing some recent information like events. You mention this is because of lack of capacity. But then the proposal asks for retroactive payment for almost four full time resources, two mostly focused on producing content. So it would seem the current results are lacking. There was also not mention of the specific outcomes from this work that was beneficial to the DAO with something like more users or activity or builders.
We would like to see these in any further proposals before voting yes:
- Clear outcomes from past work with specific numbers and evidence
- Examples of past work from each role category that was produced within the scope of the proposal
Without these it is hard to know what was accomplished and whether the price is worth it.
Our second point relates to price. A quarter of a million for 4 resources and unclear work done seems widly expensive. We would suggest revisting this number and reducing it if this proposal is to get our support.
We will look forward to further discussion and updates, but as it stands we will vote against this proposal as a further example of being against wasteful spending from the DAO.