Return of the Councils
Councils are a step in the right direction. There was too much conflict between members and committees in making decisions. Instead empowering individuals to be on grant councils and trusting their decisions, removes a lot of the obstacles involved.
Along as there is a clear path for reviewers to be off-boarded if necessary, then this is a good step forward. We want to clarify that if reviewers aren’t pulling their weight, then other team members or token holders should be able to follow an outlined process to remove them.
Accountability
Using a tool like Questbook for public accountability will help here. It’s a public and transparent tool for everyone to track grant updates and see grant distribution. They are free to use and can be split into sub-committees as mentioned in the proposal. You can see it being proposed in Compound too.
Misc
Grant reports
Since the council will be voting on grants instead of token holders, they should provide reports that inform the community on the protocol, what they hope to achieve and why they were funded simply and concisely. If OPLabs has a template in mind, it would be great to share it.
Transparency
Aave, balancer, and Uniswap have good processes to keep grant information transparent. We should take inspiration from them. Documenting processes and grants in one place such as a notion page or questbook would be a good start.
Delegate compensation
Is a 1-year cliff fair? 50% released after 6 months, and the rest released after another 6 months.
It’s a privilege to be paid retroactively, but waiting one year is a long time. Organizations like ours don’t have an issue with this, but this might deter individual delegates from getting involved.
Process
I agree with @lefterisjp here. Some form of grant waves would be easier, so both proposers and reviewers have a concrete plan to follow. Season 2 was a bit messy when it came to reviewing grants.