Is completing a GOV Mission outside of the GOV RPGF round scope?

[inbestprogram.eth]

Hey fam, its Alberto from InBest & ETH Costa Rica here.

I write with some surprise upon seeing that three voters have disqualified our team’s work, i would like to just ask the following 3 questions:

1) Is a full university module about Optimism considered a “promotional initiative”?

2) Is the successful completion of a governance mission considered “outside of scope” for a governance round?

3) If the collective wants this to continue happening, shouldn’t we support the leaders who are fulfilling these missions?

To provide context, our team has been leading governance efforts within Optimism. We successfully completed the mission called “Integrate Optimism Governance in University Module.” Our team at Inbest and Ethereum Costa Rica executed this mission perfectly.

Please note that growth mission grants are meant to grow the Superchain—in this case, governance. The tokens allocated must be 100% distributed to the students, with no incentive for the team to do it other than a future RPGF. In fact, a council member informed us at that time, that the impact should be rewarded in a future RPGF.

As this is an RPGF for governance, we believe this is the most appropriate round for our project, which has been extremely successful, surpassing even our expectations! This success is due to the tremendous effort by the team, in terms of time, money, and energy, overcoming challengues and the bureaucracy involved in running a full university course.

All information about the module was detailed on the governance forum.

Thank you for your support! please feel free to comment, we want to know your opinion.

LINK TO THE GOVERNANCE MISSION FORUM POST: OPTIMISM University Module in Costa Rica

Tagging a few people whose opinions I would really like to hear:
@op_julian @Gonna.eth @LauNaMu @brichis @opmike @Pumbi @Jonas @jackanorak @katie

Alberto
InBest
ETH Costa Rica

[robertram]

As part of this project team and a leader in the region, I know for a fact that this initiative has been highly impactful. we’ve got very positive feedback from all the students. The mission request workshop was extremely helpful for me, and the full university module, which lasted two months, covered governance, technology, grants, RPGF, and even included a step-by-step guide on how to apply for a mission.
Even some of the students already applied to mission grants with their projects and have been involved learning in how to collaborate in the ecosystem.
I just saw initiatives approved for conducting a single workshop, so seeing a whole module being rejected is very discouraging for the team.

[Gonna.eth]

RF6 specifically rewards contributions to Optimism Governance, and under the category “Governance Infrastructure & Tooling,” it clearly states:

Not eligible: Resources for Governance Onboarding, including documentation, educational videos, or any other resources aimed at explaining Optimism Governance.

Similarly, under the category “Governance Leadership,” the guidelines specify:

Not-Eligible: Governance onboarding and promotion initiatives.

Based on this, it appears your project aligns with the criteria deemed “not eligible.”

You can review the complete RF6 design details here.

While I understand that there currently isn’t an RF round that directly supports this type of project, and I agree that this is a gap that could be addressed by the Foundation, it does not justify applying to a round where the project doesn’t fit, as that would mean breaking the rules.

[inbestprogram.eth]

Thank you for taking the time to respond, @Gonna.eth . It’s very important for us to receive feedback, and we truly appreciate that you took the time to reply thanks!

That being said, we respectfully disagree with the interpretation that our work falls under “promotional initiatives.”

All of our contributions, particularly the university module, go far beyond mere promotion. We conducted the first-ever university course on Optimism governance, which included 14 sessions, projects, exams, and final evaluations. This program was integrated into the official curriculum of CENFOTEC, one of Costa Rica’s top technology universities. Labeling this as an “onboarding initiative” doesn’t seem accurate.

Does completing a governance mission not demonstrate leadership in governance?

Additionally, the definition of “Governance Leadership” includes I QUOTE: “demonstrated leadership in the Collective, including but not limited to, hosting community calls.”

LINK: Retro Funding 6: Governance - Round details

While we did host community calls throughout the year, our project went beyond just that; we facilitated governance processes through workshops, meetings, and successfully completed a governance mission to integrate Optimism governance into a university module, which aligns with “Governance facilitation of critical governance processes and/or experiments.”

How is recognizing our work breaking the rules when a single workshop session has already been approved?

With all due respect, and without intending to undermine any work, if a single workshop is eligible, as seen here:

CharmVerse - The Network for Onchain Communities,

We conducted both physical and virtual workshops. Additionally, we organized multiple events and a university module recognized by a leading tech institution—how does that not qualify, but a single session does?

We understand this was hosted by a council member, but does that make the workshop carry more weight?

We don’t intend to compare ourselves to a council member, as they are the ones who make not just this mission, but every other mission possible and much more. However, we do understand that when a council member applies, it’s far easier to approve their proposal than a Spanish-language initiative that you may not be as familiar with.

Our work had similar, if not greater, impact compared to other virtual events that were approved.

Why would our project fall under “explaining governance,” as quoted, while the approved workshops or virtual events do not?

Our team invested significant time, energy, and resources to successfully navigate bureaucratic and institutional hurdles to create this first-of-its-kind course. Since RPGF is intended to reward governance-related impact, this is exactly the type of initiative that should be encouraged and supported.

Our team has submitted an appeal. If, after reading this and our appeal document, the decision remains that we are not qualified for this round, we will respect that. We do not want anything that we shouldn’t be granted, we will follow the vision that the Collective chooses to represent. We simply want to ensure that all points are fully considered, properly justified, and publicly available.

If we are taking the time to write this letter, it is because we truly believe in what we are saying. That being said, we could be wrong, and that’s why we would love to hear a response addressing what was mentioned.

appeal: RPGF6 APPEAL - Google Docs

Thanks.
Ethereum Costa Rica
CENFOTEC
InBest