Re, the mission publique proposal.
First I’ll note the team hasn’t had a chance to do their Spaces yet, and out of respect we should give them the chance to do so before we form conclusions.
From an AADAO perspective, the idea behind the mission publiques project was to focus community energy and intelligence on the ICS contracting design & optimization problem, and, hopefully, thru this work — and also the RMIT desk study effort running in parallel — to achieve, say, 5-10% better value for the hub community thru better ICS contract design, say, on $1b of ICS chain bondings over next 3 years. That’s $50-$100m of value for $atom that might be realized: back of the envelope, $50m (value for $atom) / $60k (project cost) = 833x ROI possibly achievable for $atom holders. its a hard problem, and polkadot’s attempt to solve it chopped them up pretty badly, but, its also low-hanging fruit for the hub if we can solve it.
And, then also the willingness of the mission publiques team to translate learnings from the delib gov process experiment into recommendations and mock-ups for how to bring this kind of a process into an on-chain environment was another benefit perceived by AADAO reviewers.
Anyways, despite what AADAO reviewer committee felt was a strong value prop to $atom, a small but vocal minority of community members feel the connection of the mission publiques project lead to the WEF org is significantly-distasteful and poor optics for the ecosystem so as to override or negate any positive ROI benefits in the tradeoffs calculus, and, also, separately, there may be competing governance forum ideas in the works coming from a different set of opponents.
So now the community is starting to discuss this item in more focus (which is healthy).
We need to make strength in community gov our comparative advantage, let’s figure this out! 
