note: This one is my private response and not a statement from L2BEAT gov team.
First of all, thank you @thedevanshmehta for your kind words.
Actually, I was a little surprised to read in Joe’s response that we said T&SWG was a failed grant, because I believe we never said anything like that.
In fact, the only place we mentioned T&SWG in our summary was about the wide disparity in FIrestarter grant sizes. Other than that, we never mentioned T&SWG in our post, and we never rated it as a failed grant for the very simple reason that we don’t actually think it’s a failed grant.
I find the outcomes of this working group valuable, as you stirred a discussion on treasury management, you provided a recommendation on treasury spending and got us four different reports from active participants in the RWA field. I also value the STEP proposal that you pushed forward, I engaged in Twitter spaces dedicated to this proposal, I reached out directly with some additional feedback and I agreed to post in on Snapshot later today and I declared support for it during the vote.
One thing that I did criticize openly and publicy on Telegram is the lack of regular communication on your side that would allow us (delegates) to properly assess the progress and status of the work you’ve put in front of you at the very beginning in the kickstart post. I find your conclusion post way below my expectations of what a conclusion post for a three month working group results should be. It didn’t even mention some of your activities (like the treasury spending recommendation).
You mentioned above that I only take into consideration the simplified cost breakdown between your working group and service providers and not the detailed work breakdown you presented above. Yes! But this simplified cost breakdown is the only thing that I had up until your response above, how was I supposed to know about it if you haven’t shared it before? How are other delegates supposed to know about it and take it into account (when considering extension of your working group for “season 2” that you’ve mentioned in the post) if you posted a conclusion post (not mentioning that more detailed report is coming) that didn’t contain specific details?
I think we can do better as a DAO in terms of accountability. And I know for a fact that you can do better as well, that’s the sole reason why I limited myself with criticism but rather asked you directly for more information (first time in the TG group just after you published you conclusion, second time yesterday when we spoke).
And I do in fact believe it should not be me (or any other delegate) calling that out in this case, but that’s a topic for a totally separate discussion.