First off, thank you for this feedback.
Many of the points you bring up are already present in our thinking for improving these calls. For the last two months Govcomms has not prioritized these improvements since we did not have a full-time Engagement Lead who is dedicated to making progress on this. Our Engagement Lead started last week and so we will begin to set some better practices around issue discussion calls at a minimum. Some of what you suggest particularly rings useful:
- Call-Specific Documentation for purpose and working processes.
- Pre-call notes
- Pre-call attendance list
- Pre-call Questions List
- Better purpose statements & documentation for these calls
- Pre-prep notes from guests
- Pre-prep notes from hosts
For these first two issue discussion calls, we have been prioritizing and selecting topics pretty subjectively–Between our teams, we list all the relevant current events and choose the one we think the community needs to be more informed on given the issues up for vote or coming up for vote. We have not been amazing at the pre-call prep and I think that’s the main area we need to improve on.
Perhaps we should have avoided doing any calls until we had the foundational documentation, working processes, etc set up. Though we thought it better to hit the ground running and produce what we can without gaps while we onboarded the Engagement Lead role. I mainly led this effort from the Govcomms side by hosting these initial calls myself, in anticipation of an Engagement Lead hire that would then take this side of our mandate to the next level.
Expect improvements in the coming week and months as we ramp up our new team member.
You can find the COM-001 public budget and actuals here, with a more detailed breakdown similar to SES’s coming soon.
From Aug - Oct we are under budget by more than half. This won’t be the case moving forward as this first quarter was subject to the pains of initial setup and launch (no third FT, no health insurance, no travel, etc.)
I also caution folks to consider the actuals vs budgeted figures. They can have large differences.
The main purpose of this call is compare and contrast these different solutions. Hence why I added some questions in the call’s description/promo. Additionally, there are pre-call notes, not sure why they weren’t linked.
What’s ideal for the Maker Protocol with regards to these solutions?
How do we deal with or prioritize between multiple approved solutions?
What are the key differences between TLM, Pairwyse, and Deco?
I think as we move ahead you will find many of your specific points of feedback incorporated.
As for clarity in CU mandates–we agree. GovComms is planning a mandate refresh in the new year to more clearly present the mandate of our team.