Well, evidence is relevant if it establishes the context of an event, the circumstances of an event, or if it explains a chain of events.
Remember this whole investigation started under the label “Notification Regarding Proposed Bonus Methodology, Alleged Misconduct and/or Mismanagement Involving the General Manager (GM), and Governance Concerns”
As it relates to whether the GM behaved correctly, it may seem like a separate incident, but as it relates to whether the bonus methodology was designed fairly, or whether there are governance issues involving the DAO and Oversight itself, then it is extremely relevant, yeah?
afaict, the Feb events were:
-
in the direct chain of events leading into all of the issues reported in Grace’s incident report,
-
help the DAO and community to understand circumstances of how and why Oversight was removed from admin’ing performance comp and why Youssef was working on performance comp basically independently thru 2024,
-
shows context of Pati’s emotional disposition towards Youssef as she may have felt steamrolled by him from their earlier multi-week dispute in Jan/Feb which he ended by reprimanding her and taking back the function of assessing the performance comp (this is relevant to seeing clearly Pati’s motivations in pushing back at Youssef),
So I don’t really see how you can separate the chain of events and arbitrarily say, “well these events in the chain are relevant, and these others are not relevant”.
If we want to do an assessment of how performance comp at AADAO went wrong, how the GM stumbled, and how governance broke down, it seems necessary to do a holistic analysis of the upstream events as well as the downstream events, imho.