Thanks for your quick response
Yes, although before my time I have read discussions and the seen evolution that established a council. I recognise S3 Gov Grants Council as a significant undertaking with positive improvement and strong results. I am FOR the council model.
However, based on my experience as a contributor to an executive funding council, 100 proposals per cycle could benefit from expanding the pool of expertise. And here, I feel that a Gov Grants council has an opportunity via the proposed RFG process to identify/match/reward expertise specific to corresponding RFG(s).
I understand Notion is a collaborative workspace, and should be considered a work in progress. But what purpose does the Notion serve if not to establish a “high degree of transparency” and soe accountability about the council’s ongoing work? Given the council’s position of trust and authority, we should be able to rely on Council documentation, in this case that there would be an S3 review.
Reliability of Notion aside, I now understand from your response a Season 3 Council Review was not undertaken. Yet the process to evaluate - as then reflected in Notion - was established via Token House Approved Vote on the Council Structure Special Voting Cycle 9a.
My position is simply that Council should be accountable to Token House to uphold/undertake/deliver as per the vote that established the Council. My concern is that by foregoing the evaluation/review process, there is a clear asymmetry of information being established, which effectively ensures all but a very few, well-informed people we provided sufficient (let alone equal) opportunity to understand the needs of Gov Grants Funding, in order for there to have been any competing Council Lead Proposals presented.