At the end of Season 3, Token House delegates will be asked to review the performance of the Grants Council and to determine (a) whether to continue the Grants Council structure and (b) if so, how to judge the performance of the Grants Council in subsequent seasons.
At the outset of Season 3, the Grants Council proposes that the community consider the evaluation criteria in this post and provide comment in the first week of the season, with the comment period ending February 2, 2023. This post and the governance dialogue that follows should be a resource to Token House delegates when considering renewing the Grants Council for subsequent seasons.
Acting in Accordance with Governance Fund Mandate
Primary question: did the Council act within scope?
- Did the Council abide by the code of conduct and uphold the working constitution?
- Did the Council make grants aimed at growing the pool of available builders?
- Did the Council make grants aimed at growing the population of Optimism users?
- Did the Council operate according to the processes outlined at the beginning of the season?
- Did the Council act according to its published internal procedures?
- Did the Council fulfill the functions described in the proposal creating the Council?
Transparent and Community-based Communications and Operations
Primary question: was the council accountable to tokenholders?
- Did the Council publish decision-making frameworks that gave proposers and Optimism community members a clear understanding of the process and rules that would drive decision-making?
- Did the Sub-Committees publish rubrics that improved proposer understanding of how their proposals would be reviewed?
- Did the Council conduct transparent operations by hosting community calls, communicating in a public discord channel or other open forum?
- Did the Council solicit and respond to community feedback?
- What media for soliciting feedback were effective?
- Did the Council take actions to improve the Grants process and outcomes based on the feedback received?
Grants Process Improvements
Primary question: did the process get better or worse relative to Season 2?
- Did the Council succeed in reviewing 100% of proposals?
- Did the Council maintain an efficient Intake Review process?
- Consider the average number of days it took to review a proposal.
- Were all Voting Cycle Reports published on time (within 3 days of each Cycle end)?
- Were proposers able to understand the application and refinement processes with minimal trouble?
- Were successful proposers given an opportunity to provide feedback on the process?
- Did the Council have an NPS of 50 or higher? Transparent and community-based comms/operations (was the council accountable to tokenholders?)
- Did the Council process result in an improvement in milestone clarity in successful proposals?
- Did the Council reduce non-Council delegate workload?
You can view this post on the Grants Council landing page (here).