Thanks for this post!
I am most interested in #6 gov participation, #9 strategic discussion, #7 community participation, #5 operational process (but less elections and more day-to-day). Some thoughts, largely informed by my experience as a GMC member:
- GMC members are time-constrained volunteers and there’s some sense that the GMC is not fully fulfilling our mandate, but also has no clear path to getting there. This is thematic for the entire DAO, although in other areas I think we have a bit more “heroism”, sometimes.
- What the GMC currently is: a machine that (reactively) processes grant applications. What a high-functioning GMC could be: a (proactive) accelerator to the RP protocol and ecosystem,
- Grants and bounties are one dimension of funding improvements, but as we’ve seen with the GMC admin hire, other approaches unlock new pDAO capabilities and they are largely unexplored.
- There is no clear process around pDAO strategy. The pDAO has limited resources, it seems wasteful that we are not investing in a process that optimizes and aligns areas of investment. I suggested a committee: Roadmap & Strategy Ad Hoc Committee
- So many contributions to progress are informal, hard to track, subjective, etc. Not sure if there are better ways we could recognize and incentivize contributions (https://sourcecred.io comes to mind but probably has problems).
In short, we have financial and community resources at hand but there are a lot of obstacles to fully leveraging them. I get that DAOs can be chaotic by their decentralized-nature, but I think that means the potential for improvement is fairly large. Thanks again, looking forward to seeing what comes out of this.