Thanks for taking the time to write up this post @kyle ! Also, thanks to everyone that has provided feedback on the post 
As a GPC contributor, I see the benefit of splitting the workstream into the “Grants Stack” & “Passport” workstreams. Overall, I’m supportive of this shift. However, as the person who is being asked to handle operations for both of these workstreams, I am slightly (selfishly) concerned about the growing pains this shift may produce and the increased costs it could create. If I understand correctly, we will eventually be adding an engineering leader, two full time marketing positions and depending on my ability to manage operations for two workstreams simultaneously, possibly another operations person. Whether or not this is actually an OVERALL increase in spend for the DAO, depends on what happens with the other workstreams.
Kyle mentions:
Thinner workstreams, more bounties / project-based scopes of work and tighter feedback loops should be the norm IMO.
I agree w/ this sentiment but believe it is MUCH easier said than done, based off my experience trying, and failing, to make this happen at Moonshot Collective multiple times. I also believe this approach (bounties / project-based scopes of work) is only well suited for specific types of work. I agree w/ @Viriya that the DAO’s most valuable asset is the Gitcoin brand and that we need a core group dedicated to the work of brand strategy rather than the bounty/project based approach.
I think there are many other areas where a core dedicated group is essential for success. Any of these groups could benefit from bounties/project based work and we should continually be exploring how to build and grow the success of that approach, but I think we need to realize it’s likely going to be a long & slow journey. I think we have a lot to learn here from MMM with all the work they’ve done to implement the project/bounty based work approach.
If our future state is one where we have more small/lean workstreams, I think we should discuss how to reimagine workstream operations. I see two different operational systems for workstreams: one for lean teams with full time/core contributors and one for project/bounty based work (trusted contributors). If there were a more unified (centralized?) approach to operations for most workstreams, we could reduce the need for each to have their own dedicated operational resources and instead share operational resources more efficiently throughout the workstreams. This could mean we’d have a small workstream focused specifically on operations for all other workstreams.
The main difference between this approach and what DAO Ops is currently doing is, the new approach would focus more on the micro details of workstream operations, whereas my impression of DAO ops is they focus more on the macro details of DAO wide operations. The other difference would be that policies wouldn’t be suggestions they would be accepted approaches workstreams would follow & could change, via a vote or some other mechanism, if they didn’t fit the workstreams needs for some reason. My opinion is that in a majority of cases, workstreams creating different policies and procedures is a waste of resources/time. We are often reinventing the wheel w/ no major benefit in doing so.
I have limited context here and am likely missing a lot, so am looking forward to others exposing my blind spots in proposing this approach.