I’m in broad support of this proposal. I love to see the emphasis on funding citizens, especially to proactively pursue larger projects. I also love the emphasis on measuring outcomes, and I know @rohit will crush as a PM on this.
We should talk more about this…The citizens retro round is a GCP-funded, bottoms-up initiative that did not come from CSDO. As I’ve said before, I’m not necessarily against folding into a larger strategy but think it requires some more discussion. I hope this is not a trend that all GCPs will follow? Builders can build until it’s successful and CSDO unilaterally decides to fold it into their plans without being clear about what that means.
There seems to be a tension between wanting to fund bottoms-up work and exerting top-down control on where funding goes that we as an organization still need to resolve. I have mixed views on the decision to appoint a Grants Council to decide what bottoms-up work to fund. Why is this preferable?
To me it seems this is an extra governance mechanism wrapping around an existing token-voting GCP process (which we trust for decisions as big as funding our workstreams). With that said, I don’t think you could assemble a better roster of informed decision makers than the assembled council and I know they will make great calls. I also hope the v2 of this program experiments with more decentralized ways to make decisions.
Overall, I support and am excited for this project!
Here are some high-quality citizens previously funded I think could benefit from Citizens Innovate and am tagging for visibility:
- @davidgasquez Grants Data Portal
- @eleventh19 Web3 Grants Reporting
- @Joel_m Next Gen QF
- @ccerv1 Data Analytics (and now OSO)