None of these key results seem to capture or measure current efficiency related to the intended increase in efficiency. These key results are “our proposed changes are implemented”, not “here is where and how we see a tangible increase in efficiency”. The increase in efficiency is just assumed, and no metric against which to measure it is available.
Is the increased efficiency measured in a higher pass/reject/withdrawn ratio? In a larger number of passing proposals? In a larger number of proposals that fulfill their stated objectives? In a larger net gain or lower net expenditure from the DAO?
This does not even mention the primary concern of mine, that AAE’s may use their position of great power to subtly favor their own interests and position over that of the DAO and the ecosystem.
Giving AAE’s first pass at any proposal, along with the expectation that AAE’s may claim proposals for themselves as per The Vision and that any proposals that AAE’s don’t like are expected to terminate there and to be near-automatically rejected by the delegates, is a huge amount of power to give AAE’s without also attaching significant checks and balances, yet none seem to be proposed. This makes me concerned that the submission as a whole lacks a balance of perspective.
If this is not even recognized as a risk, it seems very unlikely that measures:
- to identify if this is occurring
- to counterbalance or reduce the risk of it happening
- to address it in the event that it does happen
..were considered, let alone integrated in the proposal. I did not find them, at least.
I found this to be a glaring flaw in The Vision, and it has gone completely without response or comment there. As this proposal seems like an implementation of The Vision, I feel that the same glaring flaw is present here, equally unaddressed.
Any other comments I have pale in significance to these so I won’t dilute my feedback with those.