Being closer than others to AGV, I have seen first hand how council did work during 2024. But also I do know how effectively the initiative, for several reasons already highlighted in other threads, did start effectively operations only in january.
In my opinion it makes sense to allow them to operate for the whole 2025 as a 1y mandate: the alternative is to replace them very soon (in the next month or two) and this would set back the initiative a lot.
Reason is simple: current council is not just a council, it effectively participate to the day to day operations of the fund, in a way that is not apparent to most delegates (more on this on the other proposal).
While I can’t decide for AGV, I honestly expect a good portion of the current council to be again candidates for the initiative, knowing how each one of them has been pouring effort into the job; I also expect the DAO to reelect most if not all of them.
One thing that could help is better disclosing their scope of work, and the new proposal is a very good start but we can definitely do more.
One thing is unclear for elections tho: last time, it was a 3 members election, with then appointing further 2 members with a confirmation vote from the DAO. Would the mechanics still be the same here?