I’m sorry if I’m misinterpreting or reading too much into it, but here and there I’ve been seeing comments like the one above that seem to lean in the direction of imposing what I feel is excessive management overhead onto veBAL holders.
IMHO, the DAO should not be judging the performance of SPs based on a previously agreed upon list of deliverables. That’s what grants are for. And even then, veBAL holders don’t vote on each and every grant - they delegate most of the work to a committee.
The governance process I would like to participate in is one where veBAL holders approve SPs based on their leaders’ reputation/track-record and the SP’s proposed mission and give them autonomy to execute for a fixed amount of time and at a fixed cost.
One might argue there’d be a third step in that process whereby veBAL holders judge SPs based on how they use that autonomy over that time period. But the way I see it that is really just a sub-step of the approval process if the SP applies for another round, because funding is not retroactive nor conditional on governance approval month-to-month.
Autonomy is a key factor to motivation, and I don’t think Balancer can attract the best minds in the tech industry if we don’t give them that. I appreciate the Integrations Team efforts towards being transparent and further detailing how they plan to accomplish their mission, but more importantly I trust they’ll responsibly make changes to those plans along the way if necessary.