Hi! 
This is my first reflection period after being an active contributor, so I confess to feeling a bit unsure about the best format for this.
When I think about feedback, especially at an organizational level, I find it most useful to highlight major themes for consideration, hoping to draw attention to areas that might have been overlooked.
With that in mind, here are 5 bold ideas that I am excited about and hope will serve as a point of inspiration for season 7:
1.- Horizontal Ways of Scaling:
- Context: There seems to be a trend toward decision-making by specialized groups of experts (e.g., citizens voting in Retro Funding or councils evaluating grants). I think the same logic could be applied to contribution paths to avoid falling into more hierarchical structures.
- Example: This season, I participated in the govNERDs contribution path, where, as in all contribution paths, there are different levels of āexpertiseā (ranging from members of the Foundation to full-role-maintainers, full-role members, in-training-members, and wannabe members). If we grow quickly, maintainers and full-roles could resemble middle management (in a corporate structure), whose responsibility is to āmanageā less experienced contributors, replicating a hierarchy (1-3-12-50-250).
Instead, aligned with the idea of governance minimization, we could create āmini-pathsā (within the contribution path) based on specialization, keeping each team under 15 people or so. This way, subgroups can self-manage without requiring āmanagement profilesā to oversee the work (which by the way, are usually the most expensive salaries). There would still be induction levels (wannabe ā full-role), but less time would be spent on management since multiple groups would be on a smaller scale. - Mini-experiment: Each contribution path could define āareas of specialization,ā and members could express their interests at the end of the training process.
2.- Double Communication Flow
- Context: While the possibility of contacting someone (via the forum, discord, telegram, etc.) is always there (which theoretically guarantees that there are open communication channels) it seems to me that there are still ways to increase the flow of information between work teams.
This season I participated as a member of the COCC (Code Of Conduct Council). While we had a telegram chat with all council members + foundation members, only our āleadā had access to the āmore central teamā chats. While I donāt think there was any information that was hidden by our lead, the point is that there is no way to be sure (if only the lead is connecting both teams).
Double Linking is one of the key concepts proposed by sociocracy and it seems to me that there are elements that we could learn from there. - Example: Instead of having a single āleadā person serving as a bridge between teams (e.g., the Foundation and a council or another representative structure), this responsibility could always be shared between two (or more) people.
This (i) ensures a greater flow of information by increasing the likelihood of representation (since there is another person who can attend the meetings if the first one becomes complicated) (ii) brings more diversity of feedback (as one person might catch something the other overlooks), and (iii) prevents any single person from withholding important information due to conflicts of interest (mitigating the risk of influence peddling).
It also better distributes the leadership workload, with one person (for example) focusing on coordinating and facilitating meetings while another takes notes and supports the use of tools. Bonus points if one person is selected by the Foundation and the other nominated by their peers. - Mini-experiment: Add at least two representatives from each operational and representative structure to the Telegram chat that the team connects to.
3.- Governance Culture Templates
- Context: This season, concerns emerged regarding the lack of clarity around the business model and income-generating workstreams for the Collective if sequencer fees eventually prove insufficient.
While I assume the Foundation has made progress on this topic (that has yet to be shared), and I understand itās not a short-term priority for season 7, I believe it would be prudent to open a āsuggestion boxā and encourage creative exploration in this area.
(I even started a thread to convene a ācollective proposal creationā process, which I think could be an interesting way forward). In this search for different value propositions (that align with the notion of a Superchain united by Optimism Governance), I think we are underestimating the value of systematizing internal processes that other chains (on the superchain) might want to replicate internally. - Example: Something I think Optimism excels at (and which surprises people when I share it) is the quality in the process flow and good operational practicesāfor example, the grants councilās decision-making, Retro Funding distribution by citizens, and contributor tracking in contribution paths, etc.). As more chains integrate into the Superchain, and these practices become more widespread, there will clearly be a need for ācultural templatesā to guide teams (within the superchain) in their own councils, grant programs, and contribution paths. In my view, this is also governance and could be part of the value package offered for accessing our product.
- Mini-experiment: Create simple documentation in the form of a operational manual outlining the process flow for teams in grants councils.
4.- Missions for Contribution Paths
- Context: Following the idea of āāconsidering missions as the only common framework for allocating resources (whether they come from the Foundation, the Retroactive Fund or the Governance Fund), I think we should consider creating missions specifically for initiatives that emerge from contribution paths. Especially if that serves to promote innovative thinking by contributors.
- Example: This season, the govNERDs decided to launch a āGovernance Visual Contestā to incentivize community participation in these topics and identify interesting ideas to explore. For initiatives like this, which emerged from the brainstorming of independent members who met on the contribution path during a season, it would be very beneficial to be able to access (looser) funds; almost like a petty cash fund for the season. While the Foundation could still require that the initiative contributes to the seasonās intent, the idea would be to allow a greater level of flexibility than in a technical mission.
- Mini-experiment: Launch a mission, in a mini-grants type format, focused on proposals coming from contribution paths.
5.- Super Contributor Stipends
- Context: We must not forget that people are what keep this ecosystem alive. While our S7 intent is external and metric-driven, our fuel is always intrinsic motivation and based on qualitative aspects. Personally, the main reason Iāve left jobs in the past has been toxic work culture. So if the best way to go far is attracting and retaining quality talent, then fostering an nurturing and vibrant work culture is as important as growing the TVL.
- Example: Just as it is being concluded at Retro Funding, that ensuring recurring funding (for teams working autonomously towards the season intent is positive to ensure its continuity), the same could be applied to individual talent adding value through a contribution path; especially those with soft skills who might struggle to contribute in other (more technical) ways and are willing to stay in the collective because of their alignment to the vision. As an active contributor, the uncertainty of not knowing if you will find a way to earn an income and sustain your participation can be exhausting, potentially driving valuable talent to safer jobs. Contributors with full-roles and some track record could receive a āstipendā from the governance fund (even if symbolic, to ensure minimum subsistence), in a kind of āsuperchain protocol guildā. The stipend could even be tied to specific milestones unlocked by demonstrating certain impacts, adding a gamification aspect of the continuous rewards.
- Mini-experiment: Add a way to be rewarded in retro funding if you prove to have been a super-contributor (in any active contribution path).
I admit that some of these ideas are half-baked, and assume there are better ways to land them. 
I hope this is understood as an exercise in reflection, rather than as a stance.
I also appreciate any feedback that helps me better understand these issues, in order to improve my future approaches. 
Over and out. 