1. What is your assessment of the impact KPIs that were set in your Budget Proposal at the start of the Season? Have you made progress towards, or achieved, these milestones or KPIs? If not, why?
The Collective Feedback Commission (CFC) was piloted beginning in Season 5 as part of the path to open metagovernance and continued throughout Season 7.
The key CFC KPIs for Season 7 were:
- Number of new ideas proposed and implemented as a result of Commission input (> 8)
- % of drafts in which feedback was ranked as “high value” by the Foundation (> 70%)
- NPS score from Foundation governance team (= > 5/7)
While the KPIs for the Foundation in managing this program were as follows:
- Member ranking of clarity of role 8.5+ (up from 7.7/10 in v1)
- Member ranking of clarity of responsibilities 9+ (up from 7.6/10 in v1)
- Member ranking of Commission efficacy 8.5+ (up from 6.9/10 in v1)
The CFC met most of these KPIs in Season 7 as detailed below:
Where gaps emerged, they were largely due to alignment delays—not lack of execution—particularly when interfacing across multiple stakeholder groups simultaneously.
2. Impact assessment – how well did your team perform in relation to success metrics, impact per OP allocated, or other pre-defined measures that are relevant for your Council or Board?
The CFC operated as a lean but high-leverage group, contributing at multiple levels across S6 & S7:
Season 6
- Provided feedback on :
- Superchain Product Vision
- Season 6 Intent
- Milestones for decentralization framework
- Trust Tiers, R4 sign-up, Elections, S6 opt-in, R6 guest voter experiment, Season 6 program amendments
- Operational Feedback
- Experiment with different selection method: attestation-based expert selection
- Deeper engagement earlier on in design process: Project Partnerships
- Between coordination with Foundation: Dedicated lead (thank you Simona!) and monthly Foundation meetings
- Experimentation Framework
- Retro Funding Season 7 Preview
- Economic Policy Framework
- Season 8 Preview
Season 7
- Community Feedback
- Retrospective and Operating Budget feedback
- Foundation Feedback
- Season 7 Intents
- ETH Staking proposal
- Season 8 blog post
- Retro Funding sign-up flow
- Joint House proposal UI
- Season 8 Election UI
- Project Partnerships
- Futarchy Experiment
- Retro Funding Mission metrics
- Guest Voter analysis
- Budget Board
4. What are possible solutions that could be explored next Season?
While the CFC itself is winding down as part of the Collective’s intentional governance evolution (see below), we recommend the following for future feedback mechanisms:
- Develop lightweight, embedded feedback protocols
- Ensure stakeholder-specific feedback pathways exist
- Maintain asynchronous feedback UX, perhaps via dedicated UI or GitHub issues (inspired by Retro Funding adjustments)
- Continue to synthesize feedback learnings into governance design
6. If you don’t believe the team’s operations should continue next Season, please explain why here.
The decision to sunset the CFC is not a reflection of poor performance, but a deliberate step in the Collective’s broader evolution. As outlined in the Season 8 Governance Update, the Collective is moving toward a minimized governance surface area and a more accountability-centric system. This includes:
- Narrowing metagovernance to reduce platform risk.
- Embedding feedback and veto rights within defined stakeholder groups.
- Transitioning from broad advisory roles (like the CFC) toward stakeholder-driven, mission-aligned governance structures.
We’re proud of what the CFC accomplished and see its sunsetting as part of a successful iterative process—one that helped pave the way for this next phase.
In gratitude: Thanks to everyone who participated in the CFC experiment—your time, attention, and willingness to iterate together brought the Collective to a new level of maturity. The next phase builds on our collective learnings and brings governance closer to what it’s meant to be: accountable, adaptive, and grounded in service to the whole.