Moderator: Louie

Note Taker: Shelby & Abbey

Key Takeaways:

summarize 5 minutes before end of brainstorm session

• There should be a decision-making process for funding/defunding with the following criteria:
  • Should it be funded?
    • High-level objective: what is the work to be done? (Alignment)
    • People on the team: are they good people? (Conviction)
  • Should it be de-funded?
    • Evaluation of work done: was the work done? (Retrospective Qualitative Impact)
• Core Team work should be evaluated by the Core Teams themselves
  • Seems like Core Team “representatives” are the natural assumption of who should be responsible for evaluating work
• Communication structure shouldn’t be mandated, the decision-making process can be

Questions & Discussion Points:

MAIN QUESTION 2: How does the Strategy Pillar use this Radicle-wide strategy to shepherd core teams - while limiting additional operational overhead?

1. [GUIDING QUESTION D] Criteria: What criteria should the Strategy Pillar use to evaluate and approve work proposed by Core Teams? How often should Core Team work be reviewed?
   1. mission & vision alignment
   2. execution/progress
   3. Inter-team expectations - understanding how other teams define your own success
   4. what are examples of things that we would defund a team for - besides not executing?
      1. Escalation phases - not just one
   5. longer feedback loops with hard cutoff
      1. short-term soft review/alignment
      2. over long-term stop funding if soft solutions don’t work
   6. Mutual accountability between teams:
      1. Not inherent that they coordinate with each other
      2. Open call (monthly/quarterly) for teams to exchange needs/struggles with each other
2. [GUIDING QUESTION E] Accountability & Health: Should the Strategy Pillar be responsible for holding Core Teams accountable for their work? If yes, how can the Strategy Pillar do this more as a “shepherd” than a “gatekeeper”? Can we achieve this by evaluating the "health" of a core team? What would evaluating “health” of a Core Team look like? If no, what/who should have that role (e.g. another pillar)?
3. [GUIDING QUESTION F] Onboarding/Offboarding Teams: Should the Strategy Pillar be able to decide whether to onboard/offboard Core Teams? If yes, what criteria should be used? If no, what/who should have that role (e.g. another pillar)?

Questions & Discussion Points:

• How are we introducing “softer” accountability/alignment mechanisms between Core Teams so they can make these decisions themself?
  • I would like to have explicit signals of alignment along the way
• Core Teams should set up their own review/qualification processes
  • Interest in Core Teams to work together so nobody gets de-funded
• Monthly strategy meeting? Exchange between Core Teams about what’s needed from each other
• Who should hold each other accountable? And why? With what criteria?
  • Hard-cut off vs. escalated