I’ve thought about this a bit over the past year. In no particular order, I think:
- GMC members would generally be qualified to participate in steering.
- GMC members are unsure about how much pDAO steering by the GMC is appropriate.
- The GMC itself would benefit greatly from steering, to inform its decision-making.
- The act of steering: steering is a sufficiently different exercise from evaluating grant applications that I don’t think it would necessarily be a lot easier or more efficient for a GMC member to take on steering than a non-GMC member.
- Coordinating steering: the GMC is a well-established governance structure that may work well for steering, by swapping out the task of processing grants with steering. I can therefore imagine a steering committee as a branch within the GMC or fork of the GMC.
- A proper steering process should involve more collaboration with the core team than the GMC has had.
- A proper steering process should involve more collaboration with other pDAO entities than the GMC has had (e.g. IMC).
- GMC sub-committees give GMC members a more myopic and fragmented view of the state and goals of the protocol than when there were no sub-committees.