When I first saw the GWG II proposal in Thursday’s call I was caught unawares and I didn’t really participate in the discussions.
My understanding was that the GWG was planned initiated as a stop-gap to allow some more free-flowing of INDEX resources to help the coop move faster.
It was certainly successful in this regard and we have seen progress in a number of areas.
However, the GWG seemed to expand to include activities that I wouldn’t consider growth (Dune subscriptions / Loopring LM etc) purely on the basis that the GWG could deploy cash quickly. As such, it felt like the entire coop was sucked into the GWG (apart from Engineering who remained under Set).
After sleeping on this proposal a couple of times (and noticing that the GWG II proposal was framed around @anon10525910’s Laying the rails for Working Groups ), which I hadn’t read until this morning) I can better appreciate the aim of the proposal.
On concern, I still have it that given the current broad scope of the GWG, it will constrain the available space for other WG’s to work (given that WG’s should avoid overlap).
However, I don’t think we have fixed the underlying issue. The coop doesn’t really have a common vision, structure or method for allocating our resources.
Before I could feel happy about approving any single working group proposal I would like to understand:
- The coops vision / North Star / KPI’s.
- The coops overall organisational structure (Treasury, analytics, engineering, research, product, growth, org),
- Does it all fit within WGs? if not, how do we capture the exceptions?
- The coops budgetary targets.
- The proposed roles, scope, and resources for each WG.
Given that this proposal (GWG II) includes a go-live data of Monday the 15th March. I can not vote in favour of it.
I think we need to thrash out the details above, with the aim of multiple complementary WG’s being proposed in parallel with a common start date (1st April?).