There’s a lot of discussion going on here and this response is meant to touch on this single point. As the sole decision-maker to date on what gets included in sCoop I do not in any way see it as a tool to hold WGs or Owls to account.
Comprehensive goals since inception:
That said, I believe verifiable self-reporting to be the best form of initial insight re an accountability structure, and would be keen to have something standardized across WGs for this purpose. To date it seems as though the 3- or 6-month WG funding requests, and community approval of same via forum polls, is currently the only required reporting function other than those stated within individual WG proposals; I think there’s room for improvement here across the board.
In relative terms I find the reporting of IC accounts and wallet activities to be adequate, but will note that TWG does not hold public WG meetings, and as such there is no coverage in the newsletter other than highlighting forum posts. There is also a less-obvious path to contribution within this WG than others (EWG is similarly not public-facing, but does promote the Wizardry onramp).
I’m admittedly biased given that I manage a newsletter that attempts to curate the content of WG meetings, but I tend to find that having an opportunity for the community to engage at regular intervals can mitigate dissonance; the organizational equivalent of, “we vibin’ fam?” I’m speculating, but if there’s a sense that there’s not enough visibility and opportunity for feedback on TWG efforts, establishing a community call at regular intervals may help; effectively getting the regular bilateral communication levels up to those of other WGs.
Hoping these personal observations are helpful here; I’ve voted FOR and I’ll help support this WG in any way I can.