Overview of overlapping ideas in SOS submissions

[jameskbh]

Thanks for creating this thread! I want to congratulate all submitters on their excellent work and excellent suggestions for moving Arbitrum forward.

I will make my intervention here, not regarding the overlap between the submissions, but to resurface a comment I made at the beginning of this SOS proposal:

Arbitrum Strategic Objective Setting (SOS) – Defining the DAO’s Interim Goals

Thanks for your proposal! Regarding the proposal submission minimum items, I would like to suggest an addition. Expected resources to be utilized. In Lido’s case, we are talking about objectives for one protocol. When thinking about Arbitrum, the spectrum is broader and, two objectives, while perfectly aligned with our MVP, may be competing for the same resources. My understanding is that the 1-year goals are effectively proposals/initiatives to achieve the 2-year objective (the beginning …

I always saw this process, which started with the Unifying Arbitrum’s Mission, Vision, Purpose (MVP) post, as a Strategic Planning exercise.

Source: 6 Elements of Effective Strategic Planning

In this exercise, the MVP would act as the Vision, Mission and Objective (Purpose) levels, and the SOS, the other levels as, AFAIK, there is no other proposal in the pipeline to move down the pyramid.

I believe this view was also shared by @entropy when they stated:

@Entropy

• Once the DAO’s end state goals have been solidified, anyone will have the opportunity to propose a strategy matrix made up of 12- and 24-month focus areas for the DAO through an open process named Strategic Objective Setting (SOS). These areas should have well-established guidelines for tangible implementation and what they aim to accomplish, as well as only have one purpose—optimally moving the DAO towards its end state. This is the step that will allow the DAO to refocus its attention on the most critical deliverables and judge how one-off initiatives fit into its short- to medium-term priorities. Entropy Advisors is working on the SOS proposal in tandem with the MVP, and it will be posted as a subsequent separate proposal with the DAO choosing one matrix of strategies as the winner.
• Combined with financial forecasting, the SOS will enable the DAO to budget itself for the next 12/24 months by earmarking capital to each strategic focus area ratified in step 2. Arguably, the most important aspect of this step is for the DAO to align on how profitable/loss-making it wants to be during the coming year(s). Lastly, with clearly defined strategic focus areas, it should also become simpler for the DAO to begin marketing its efforts since, e.g., a clear identity, as well as narratives, can be built around each of the DAO’s focus areas.

However, after reading all the submissions, I noticed some levels were not addressed, and we stayed mostly at the “Strategy” level. And why is this an issue?

Right now, we don’t have a clear view of two critical items: the budget and the execution.

• How much is each SOS going to cost?
• Who will execute the projects and actions supporting the Objectives laid down?
• How do the proposed AAEs interact with those objectives?
• How will the DAO resort to other parties to execute any Objective not covered by the current structures in place?

Therefore, we now review items without knowing if we can execute them or if enough funds will be dedicated to them. We need to address this.

I believe that we will end with a merged version of all submissions as the way to move forward. While doing “The Merge”, our actual planning for the steps ahead, we must introduce those other items in the final proposal to ensure provision for the actual execution.

Source: What is Strategic Planning and why does it matter?

I hope this makes sense to all. Looking forward to the next steps on this.