I love the idea of forking and modifying and the ethos of action that is behind that, but I am concerned with the approach of feedback and the implications it has on already strained governance processes (from the standpoint of time, feedback consolidation, gathering sufficient input, and building on the input of others).
My reasons for encouraging it to be posted within the same thread as the other proposal are the following:
- What is the end-game of this proposal? Is this purely feedback? Are you planning to put this proposal on-chain? It’s unclear how this relates to the 60 or 70 something messages and thoughts that have gone into the original proposal.
- This approach isn’t scalable. If everyone that has suggestions or feedback takes this approach, we will end up with an unmanageable discussion process. The best ways to provide document feedback is via tooling that is designed for that function and includes both versioning controls and some sort of voting / rating mechanism for suggestions.
- The revised proposal doesn’t include significant revisions that might warrant a new thread. In my mind, significant revisions indicate an entirely new premise. Such a premise might be a budgeting-framework for funding-platforms drawing on the community pool, a spec for on-chain oversight, or a competing and drastically differing scope than the original proposal.
Again, I think your feedback and formatting is really thoughtful (not to mention it is a great step forward in the discourse to provide specific suggestions), but by making a new thread you’ve removed it from the context of the original proposal. Feedback should, imo, be a collaborative effort, and it should be built on the shoulders of others unless there is a definitive split in methodology (as outlined above).
I have additional feedback and questions about the revisions, but will restrain from leaving them here until there is consensus that this revision deserves its own thread.
just my 2c. would love to hear what others think as well.