[DRAFT] Quarterly Reports for Mission Requests

Mission Request made by @Ariiellus and originally shared here.

Delegate Mission Request Summary:

Quarterly reports showcasing the pivotal advancements in each Mission Request. These reports aim to enhance comprehension for Delegates, Badgeholders, Citizens, and anyone interested in the collective, providing a succinct overview of key developments.

S5 Intent Please list the Intent your Request aligns with here: #4 - Governance Accessibility

Proposing Delegate: Brichis (Sponsor)

Proposal Tier: Fledgling Tier

Baseline grant amount: 10,000 OP

Should this Foundation Mission be fulfilled by one or multiple applicants: one applicant

Submit by: To be set by Grants Council

Selection by: To be set by Grants Council

Start date: ASAP

Completion date: 1 report per quarter, April, July, October, December


How will this Delegate Mission Request help accomplish the above Intent?

  • Enhancing Understanding: The creation of quarterly reports will facilitate a better understanding of the most significant developments in each Mission Request.
  • Standardizing Reporting: The reports set a standard for progress reporting, improving the analysis of potential RPGF applicants and facilitating the evaluation of project effectiveness.

What is required to execute this Delegate Mission Request?

  • Research Phase:
    • Compile information on Season 5 Mission Requests, including general data for each.
    • Define evaluation metrics for each Mission Request.
  • Analysis Phase:
  • Evaluation Process:
    • Conduct 30-minute sessions with Delegates after each Quarterly Report.
    • Record sessions for in-depth analysis.
    • Obtain attestation from a minimum of 10 delegates for each report.
  • Communication:
    • Provide regular biweekly updates on the evaluation methodology.
    • Deliver quarterly reports promptly in weeks 3 of suggested months.
    • Host sessions within two weeks after publication, with the Q4 report before Christmas.

How should the Token House measure progress towards this Mission?

  • Receive biweekly updates on the methodology used for Mission evaluation, ensuring transparency and insight into the ongoing process.
  • Monitor the timely delivery of quarterly reports in weeks 3 of suggested months, (April, July, October, December) tracking adherence to the proposed schedule.
  • Ensure that sessions are hosted within two weeks after publication, with the Q4 report delivered and evaluated before Christmas, as specified in the Mission Request.
  • Evaluate the quality of the reports through the attestation (scheme TBD), ensuring that each report undergoes evaluation by a minimum of 10 delegates.

How should badgeholders measure impact upon completion of this Mission?

  • Measure the functionality and effectiveness of each report for the collective
  • Badgeholders could use this reports to review, communicate and vote on proposals in future RPGF and even list creations.

Have you engaged a Grant-as-a-service provider for this Mission Request?


Has anyone other than the Proposing Delegate contributed to this Mission Request?


This idea seems very good to me, but there is something I don’t understand should the one running this mission ask those running missions for updates on them? Wouldn’t it be easier to ask for the metrics in the mission template?


Hello @AxlVaz!

You are correct, while the mission template serves as a fundamental guide for tracking progress, our approach involves a more comprehensive evaluation process. This mission propose to take those metrics and compare it with the IEF and MG to evaluate their impact and then write a brief and comprensible report on how this mission is going (milestones, issues, etc). In essence, our mission is to bridge the gap between raw metrics and meaningful impact assessments.

I believe that, by providing detailed information, it is possible to contribute to a better understanding of each mission making future evaluation processes (RetroPGF for example) more efficient and bring overall success in accessibility to the governance of the collective.


I like the idea of reports, however if the suggestion is to make multi-lingual reports, we should open them up to more langauges.


It would be great!

When I wrote this request I only had in mind Spanish and English because they are the languages that my team and I can handle (native level or B2/C1), even though we are studying other languages like French and Portuguese right now we don’t feel able to execute these tasks in those languages.

But if other teams would like to incorporate other languages it would be great if they would apply and this assignment could be adjusted to their respective needs.

Thanks for the explanation @Ariiellus and all the best to your team.

I have been working with teams that produce crypto content in 10 different languages, we’d definitely be interested in this and I’d like to request you to make this mission multi-lingual as opposed to restructuring it to two langauges. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Happy to restructure that way but some concerns appear to me. How we define which languages should be considered for this mission and how do we select those applying in order to prevent n applicants which will use AI / translate tools to accomplish this mission?

Do we have any database of how much multilingual members are in the collective @brichis?

Do you have in mind any procedure to verify applicants are native speakers or high fluent in x language? @jengajojo

An idea could be define 3 languages in advance:
1.- Spanish
2.- Portuguese (because I saw a like from @JoaoKury and Brasil is pretty different than the rest of Latam)
3.- TBD (I have in mind right now french / german / italian)

Of course each applying should provide their respective reports in english to guarantee that the whole collective could access their information.

This changes will still improve the governance accessibility and could be covered perfectly by 3 teams bringing more diversity to the collective.

1 Like

Hey @jengajojo & @Ariiellus! I believe that for this particular proposal, the research, analysis, and evaluation tasks can be carried out by a single team, while the translation of the material can involve multiple teams. To minimize duplicated efforts, my suggestion is to assign these tasks to a single applicant and specify that the content will be in English. Any teams interested in translating these reports can apply to RetroPGF. wdyt?

This is something that is already being handled by the Metrics and Milestones sub committee of the Grants Council so this mission is unnecessary and I will not be giving my approval.


Hey @Ariiellus – just wanted to flag this as a proposal that still needs delegate approvals in order to move to a vote. If you are no longer interested in pursuing this proposal – please disregard this message. In order to see the delegates assigned to your proposal those can be found here. The deadline to provide feedback and approvals for Mission Requests is February 7th at 19:00


I think it’s a good opportunity for others to become involved in the collective, @brichis. This idea could broaden the scope of what is happening in the collective without being attached to a specific mission, and then badgeholders could evaluate if that was valuable.

Should we change the next line?:

**Should this Foundation Mission be fulfilled by one or multiple applicants:**one applicant **

After delving into the Milestones and Metrics Sub-Committee, I see a significant distinction between the goals of this proposal and the MMSC’s responsibilities. While the MMSC is responsible for reviewing and grant finalist progress, this proposal aims to share a consistent report for people with different backgrounds.

If you @katie or another Delegate suggest me to backtrack on this proposal, I think the right way to go would be to realize and apply to RPGF. This proposal could be uncertain as to whether it is something the collective should support right now

If anyone feels that we should go ahead and adjust the guidelines then I will be on the lookout for feedback.

This proposal has been updated, general changes are:

  • Baseline grant amount from 20k to 10k
  • Mission be fulfilled from “up to 3” to one applicant
  • Information in Spanish has been eliminated to encourage people to translate documents and share it with their communities.

Hope this changes are enough to pass this proposal to Ready to vote