Appreciate your thoughts here @ccerv1 and as an active steward here for a while I value your judgement. Those contributor paths pipeline is something that I have been wanting to implement in another area within the community for a while (or a version thereof), as I think it’s a very valuable. When it comes to baking that into a governance strategy, I think that’s a way’s away though and could be a really good longterm goal as we continue to push forward our gov goals of 2025.
I wasn’t around when stewards were first onboarded. Part of the problem IMO with consistency over the years that I have been here is that there has been many handovers of processes and a lot of turnover so perhaps that’s where things have gotten lost and a lot of stop-starts. That being said, though, one of the top feedbacks that we have received is that stewards should be compensated/incentivized better and I did see a lot of decline in activity/engagement since I started. This is part of what we aim to solve for this year: Gitcoin Governance Strategy 2025. And that’s why I’m confident that this will be different and that it may be a strong stepping to a stronger incentive structure such as contributor paths.
The one change we could make is elect the council for 6 months instead of a year and at the end of that term we re-evaluate the value. That way we’re also keeping ourselves accountable. I would love to also hear @Sov’s thoughts here!
From the perspective of the GG Council and their responsibilities (which this new council structure would also be responsible for), is that those members expressed interest to become more engaged within the Gitcoin ecosystem on a broader level as it helps with context setting when making decisions about Community Rounds within GG, so I would personally be excited to see a council be more engaged in a few different areas beyond only the gov forum.
We’ll take this to a vote next so that we can get it finalized.