Thanks for the hard work put into this framework! I am voting against this proposal as i believe it will increase factionalism in the DAO and create camps between delegates, but i am open to changing my mind.
If i had to draw an analogy to the real world, it feels like ArbitrumDAO currently has only a legislative body (delegates and token holders) and this proposal seeks to setup an executive branch in ArbitrumDAO (the ARDC) elected by tokenholders , similar to parliamentary democracy in some respect. I like that there is the equivalent of an ombudsman / inspector general (DAO advocate) within the proposed structure.
This executive body has a far reaching mandate like assisting with drafting & passing laws and also seeing through the implementation of these laws (code review and economic analysis)
I’m not per se opposed to the creation of an executive body at Arbitrum that Gets Shit Done 
- in fact it might well be what we need right now. However, I don’t see how the flywheel objection I raised in the Arbitrum coalition proposal is addressed here;
Almost like how the ruling party in parliamentary democracies use their government power to get re-elected and go after opponents in the legislature
I am curious to know why you explicitly encourage something as divisional as a coalition to form, rather than getting a separate RFP for each role approved by the DAO and then having service providers apply under it. How could I express my preference if i feel we need code review but not proposal drafting?
It would be a more cumbersome process for sure, but also maybe less political?
Thanks again for your work, these are all offered in the spirit of constructive feedback that I hope results in a better end outcome!