The below response 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.
Going from the last item to the first one:
• Plurality Labs must provide well-scoped and defined deliverables for Milestone 2 that we can be held accountable for afterwards.
That is correct. We believe that to be a reasonable expectation for any proposal that comes to the DAO for funding, let alone for such amounts.
• Plurality Labs must clearly define the actionable insights derived from the experiments/learnings and document the reasons for continuing or cutting programs
That is also correct, and again an expectation which we believe is reasonable.
• Plurality Labs must provide the framework in a well-documented way such that a greenfield team could take it and run with it.
We expect Plurality Labs to provide a framework in a well-documented way. And while we don’t necessarily expect a greenfield team to be able pick up and run with the framework, we expect a framework that could potentially be picked up by other DAO contributors with relevant experience and be used as the basis on which they’ll build on.
• Plurality Labs does not propose a second milestone until all the current programs have run their course and individually been evaluated.
It’s not necessary to wait until all current programs have run their course before proposing a second milestone. However, we believe that moving forward with Milestone 2 should only come after enough insights from Milestone 1 have been gathered and used to form and evaluate a framework which can be scaled during Milestone 2.