Hi all, these are our first feedbacks about the Grants Council, feel free to leave an opinion on any of these points written below:
Our thoughts about the Council Grants
We believe Council Grants is a step in the right direction in a mix of radical but consistent changes in the iteration of governance processes. As participants of 2 committees (DeFi C and Tooling), we experienced both positive and negative situations, discovering all participants’ preferences, process criteria and desired outcomes during governance, which didn’t necessarily meet all the goals set at the beginning of governance.
We also believe that the council will decrease the workload of the delegates in a more obvious way, this in the future unlocks new responsibilities such as those already named in the proposal. Other councils could even be formed in the future if governance so desires.
About the structure of the Council
The structure of the council is well proposed, both in terms of the number of members and the constitution of 2 sub-committees.
The budgets allocated to each sub-committee are reasonable and consistent with the work requested.
About the responsibilities of the Board
The responsibilities are well focused. However, we have to highlight some points:
- “Applications that are submitted to the Council database should also be published to the Forum, unless a proposer opts-out of Forum publication”. We believe that governance processes must be 100% transparent, all applications must be published in the forum.
- We believe that order is an important factor, currently applications enter the forum on any given day and this makes follow-up and feedback difficult. One or two days should be established where applicants have time to submit their proposal. For example, the first two days of the voting cycle.
- One of the responsibilities of the leader is to coordinate the subcommittees and organize regular meetings of the council. We suggest that these meetings be open and public so that any governance member can attend and that there be a brief time for open questions to the council. For example, if every Thursday the council has a meeting, the last 10 to 15 minutes open it up to questions from the governance members.
- Once the Grant Council members are elected, they should submit a proposed framework and this should be voted on by the governance by way of reconfirmation, to maintain transparency of processes and workflows, in favor of opening a window of opportunity for feedback once members are confirmed.
- We recommend that the Council have an independent communication instance (e.g. Twitter, Lens) to publish reports and summaries of the work carried out. This should serve as an external source of consultation and promotion so that the rest of the ecosystem is up to date on what is being built in Optimism and attract more interested parties.
About Council Membership
As mentioned above, the number of council members is consistent and in line with the work to be performed. We’re 100% in agreement with the remuneration of the council members.
If this council system continues for several seasons, we believe that subcommittee members should not be re-elected for more than 3 consecutive seasons.
Detail:
- A member is voted for 3 consecutive seasons to be a member of the committee, in the following season he/she cannot reapply.
- A member is voted for 2 consecutive seasons and in the 3rd season is not voted, he/she can reapply in the 4th season.
- A member is re-elected for 3 consecutive seasons, in the 4th season he/she may not stand for re-election. He/she may be elected in the 5th season.
This idea is so that all governance members know that they have the opportunity to participate in the council.
Another point to establish is a framework where governance members can remove the leader or a consensus member in case of non-compliance with the Code of Conduct, being involved in an external conflict (rugpull, scam, etc.) or going against the Optimistic Vision. The same complaint form could be used for delegates.
About the Council budget
We fully agree that the council should have a budget, that it should be voted on each season by the governance and that it should seek to be aligned with the objectives of each season and good management of the available resources.
Other issues
- We were glad that the governance members didn’t agree with the one-year block. In Latam we live in unstable economies and with constant inflation, we know that it is really difficult to stay active without a livelihood.
- We were also in favor of eliminating the 0.5% filter, we and other members have been active and have less than 0.5% of the voting power, in this case expertise, reputation and track record should be sufficient. Inclusion is the way to consolidate the participation of more users in governance.
Final
So far we are pleased with this proposal and with what is to come in Optimism’s governance. We strongly believe that the grant council is the right way forward. We look forward to further developments.