Thank you for the work that went into this - and the work you are all putting into helping Gitcoin lead the public goods space. That s14 succeeded despite the bear market is a great validation for PGF and Gitcoin.
Of all of the budget proposals this is the one that as an outsider I found most difficult to get my arms around. I think this is largely due to the sheer scope of efforts and where I am in my learning curve.
Additionally, I believe there are cases in which we are still listing as objectives tasks that one might be able to logically group as tasks within overall objectives. Also, even though it was a big achievement to go from 13 objectives to 6, that still may be too many.
To nit pick - objective 3 is listed as “leverage grassroots efforts to… increase grantee quality & engagement.” The objective here is “increase grantee quality & engagement” and the excellent work of grassroots would be considered a means to that end IMO. We put a tactic into the statement of an objective - unless I’m off base here. What do you think?
Continuing on that thread - and here comes an actual question 
- am I right that we currently lack metrics that are agreed upon that measure “grantee quality” and “grantee engagement”? Could we set for example an imperfect metric such as “host at least X grantees in weekly Twitter spaces”? What about success metrics for past cohorts? Do we have such metrics and would it be useful to look at how many grow and prosper over time? I wonder if it will be a powerlaw like distribution, what do we expect?
Regarding engaging grantees - just wondering if grantees also receive GTC? If so they could be welcomed as owners, taught how to delegate, presented w stewards and report cards, and otherwise walked through Gitcoin governance 101. Just an idea re: engagement.
Overall objective 3 - because it does not have metrics associated w/ it - sounds a bit like a list of well-meaning efforts.
Objective 4 - while there are some metrics mentioned, the base lines are not provided which would help to set expectations and build confidence we are going to exceed these targets. For example, “more grant applications in before the round begins vs. during round” begs the question - what % of grants are received during or before the round NOW and by how much do we plan to shift applications from during to before?
I share @linda question about FDD vs. the new hire of an Eligibility Analyst and see your response. Nonetheless, I was still wondering whether the FDD crowd funding efforts (humble brag I got my NFT!) of grant reviews be impacted by this new hire and by PGF taking on this additional role?
Is Objective 4 mostly about improving the grant applicant experience, or mostly about controlling our costs, or both? At the risk of over stepping, this feels to me like the classic 2nd objective you see in a groups objectives. Objective #1 is often about top line as it is in our case. Objective #2 then is often about increasing throughput while controlling costs. Classic metrics here then are process metrics (for example reduce grantee wait time by X%) & also something like a NPS. Do we have the ability to measure or infer metrics from the customer or grant applicants perspective? If so, capturing 1-2 key ones here might be useful either now or in the future?
Regarding NPS like measures, when we list “returning partner’s assessment of whether the process improved or not” - do we mean we will survey or interview at least X% of returning partners and report on our findings within the DAO and for the next funding cycle?
Objective 5: here I was a little lost. What is meant by “defined mapping of ecosystem legitimacy within program scope”? Is this a mapping of the landscape?
Objective 6: seems clear. The lack of fully defined roles & responsibilities & the ongoing work on runbook development and usage does raise the question of whether additional hiring is appropriate right now, especially given the external environment. I think overall we are advocating for three hires?
- partner account manager
- marketing ops
- grant analyst
The grant analyst work raises for me the question - again - of potential FDD overlap regarding crowdsourcing efforts.
Perhaps you might want to argue for why hires 1 & 2 are urgent and cannot be delayed while more work is ongoing to define roles and responsibilities and so forth?
Leaving the “best” or at least most quantitative for last - Objective 1 seems nailed down from my perspective. It is after all a quantifiable and strategic objective. Again, do you need the hire to hit these objectives? Also, do we have a sense yet of the funnel, “sales cycle time” and so forth for round partners? To get those additional 7 round partners (35 vs. 28), do we need to be in discussions w/ approximately 3x that number 60 days before the round? I know we just adopted Hubspot so I’m guessing we don’t yet know much about our funnel ratios?
Regarding objective 2 - it seemed to be another aspect of prepare for Grants 2.0 - which is also essentially what object 5 is. Is one more outward facing (I think objective 2) and one more inward facing (i.e. objective 5)? Or am I missing the gist of it?
As I mentioned, thanks to the scope of your activities and my location along a long learning curve about Gitcoin, this proposal was the most challenging for me to understand and hence to provide some feedback to. Nonetheless, I hope the above provides some questions that are worth responding to and some ideas on how to tighten up the objectives & metrics for understanding and possibly for increased focus. I look forward to your responses including any pointers I can follow for additional understanding about the work streams themselves.
Many thanks!