Thanks @lee0007 for the comments above, currently reworking the budget with the team so it will drop and the KPIs a getting better defined. Hope to have this complete, it will not move to vote before this is done.
I think the Sub-DAO route is interesting and happy to move that direction, it may be a more efficient way of moving teams in. Will have a think if I can restructure it with a Sub-DAO model.
Proposal has been updated, we have dropped the bounty pool and have allocated two part time contributors to Finance which we assessed will be needed. We decided to allocate these rather than have a larger bounty pool.
We reduced Data, ops and Legal pools as well. Over all the budget has dropped by $95K.
There is also now better definitions on the Data KPIs.
We will consider a Ops sub-DAO at the end of this season.
There’s still not a single clear, concise deliverable in this entire proposal let alone Specific Measurable Achievable Relevant Time Bound (SMART) deliverables. @Anthony.Leuts@ramon@fartunov@daniel-ospina all people I know that typically care about deliverables…
Without deliverables how does Eagle Ops expect to hold any individual or team accountable for the 492k spend? I don’t even see a commitment from this team to report on all these “activities” (searched topic for “report”, no results in the proposal)
I’m sorry I do not understand the aversion to my several requests for transparency and accountability? Operations should be setting the example for coordinated planning to ensure efficiency and effectiveness. We have to date held the DAO to a much higher standards of transparency, accountability and responsibility. …
Disappointed that a proposal of this calibre is being progressed “on behalf” of the DAO contributors named. @Ricktik6@Fabs@anukriti10@lion917 is this what you want delegates to read of your ability to plan, propose and operate?
Seriously imo, this proposal undermines the professionalism of everyone named for funding and I would one last time recommend that the teams involved here, take charge of their own future and present proposals worthy of the funding requested. Here’s a couple examples of proposals I have helped set clear deliverables in collaboration with
Can you see the difference? Guys you have everything you need for a great proposal. It is simply a matter of structure and clear communication. Best foot forward people, I do not believe this proposal fairly represents your talent, commitment and contributions to the DAO.
Ive got to agree with Renee on this one. Im not saying this guild isnt needed. We can all agree it is. But this proposal is sub par at best. If any other proposal were delivered in this state it would be absolutely torn apart in this forum. Honestly i feel like some parts of this proposal are riding on the fact that ops is necessary in the dao. Which is resulting in the lack of clarity and quality that others have upheld for the past 9 months. Even after the edits in the links to notion (which is another thing that is in only this proposal, which leads to issues around versioning that havent been pointed out yet) there are still sections that are completely vague. Talking around what needs to be done without actually stating what is going to be done.
I appreciate the effort that has been put in to the proposal by everyone involved. However, I have also reached out to help and even held a proposal workshop that noone from ops came to or participated in async. Which i made available as well. These are things that would have directly assisted with the issues that are being stated here and I dont understand why these tools havent been utilized…
Correction reporting was always included from the beginning of the proposal “We will also continue to report monthly using the ESD template report.” Another paragraph on reporting was added as well. We have also built the tracker that we will be using throughout the season’s for live reporting on progress. This will be the source of truth alongside dework for individual task tracking for the coming seasons: Notion – The all-in-one workspace for your notes, tasks, wikis, and databases.
Fundamentally the scope of Ops is very large and agree that any of these proposals could be standalone and request a similar amount of funds to other teams, I would anticipate the cost would increase if this was to occur and provide poor value to the DAO along with increased coordination burden. This is why the KPIs were linked in separate notion pages as each of these could be stand alone proposals in there own rights.
I would like the measurement of success to move towards an OKR system where we aspire to reach high-level goals, rather than set granular tasks which are set to the lowest level where funding is attached.
As a group, we should be aspiring for more and to be trying to reach high-end goals thus the high level goals are highlighted hopefully the table makes that clearer.
Regardsless of the level of the goal, people still need to be able to express how/what they intend to deliver to achieve those goals in order to be accountable and my repeated request for deliverables within the proposal (vs outside documents subject to change) is about accountability.
Deliverables are more directly relevant to effective and efficient planning and process, than funding and I may have incorrectly believed Eagle Ops would continue to build upon season 1 proposal to “… maintain operational efficiency across the DAO…” and
Had Ops collaborated in the dGov S2 Proposal Workshop lead by @Shawncubbedge we could have addressed concerns back in July, prior to forum because I am well aware that this 90’s communication method fails to convey that I am in fact a stronger supporter of the proposed team. I have no doubt they do and will continue to deliver. I simply do not believe that this proposal does them justice. More than that, I think the proposal has jeapodised the team’s ability to secure funding and I hope to be proven wrong on this point.
I have just seen that the DAO Ops proposal includes the option to abstain. I have actively sort compliance advice on this matters several times in the past and a vote to abstain counts for neither quorum nor outcome, it is a wasted vote and no advice was provided to advise this fact in your proposal
The Charter is intended for yes no votes only. A position communicated repeatedly in multiple places on the forum by @Compliance Committee Members of which @AlexClay would be aware
This proposal meets none of the standards established and required of every other team to date including dTech, Community Guild and Executive Sub DAO Members. You are establishing a very clear double stand between what the AA can propose vs what is required of the DAO.
Lack of compliance is not my call to make but I am requesting a veto of this proposal by the @eaglelex@Tayy@ronald_k and if veto’d I hope you will take the opportunity to address the clear double standard and present a proposal to the equal standard required of everyone else, one to which people can be held accountable for the 420k funding requested.
Sorry but I’m not the only person that sees the double-standard I’m just in the shit position of voicing widely held concerns on behalf of DAO contributors.