I’m for it. Was about to suggest something similiar
Not just roadmap, but overall metrics on the DAO much like a public company’s earnings calls. What’s happening with the treasury and investments, etc.
I am not opposed to a roadmap but often they can be restrictive. Users will expect X,Y,Z to be done in order on certain dates. Roadmaps need to be living documents and be extremely flexible towards market conditions and unexpected opportunities.
Do you think people would be dumb enough to see it as a contract or a commitment? IMO, the term “roadmap” is a high-level document that articulates the startegy behind both the goal and how you get there… Nothing more than that. But maybe I put too much trust in people…
i’m a product manager myself, and the key ingredient for a good roadmap is to treat it as a product.
A product is a living entity, always in movement and change. you can commit to executing stuff short term but you need to take into account the market and user needs to achieve that product market fit.
I’d like too to see a roadmap, but could be a bit deleterious when people start to complain when something not happen like scheduled or change (and we that tons of people are more inclined to follow complains/fud than use their brain to understand things by yourself).
Anyway I’d really like to see a roadmap, even if it will be change weekly or something like that.
Regular, systemic opposition and antagonism should not scare anybody…
Generic/spontaneous complaints shouldn’t just scare the DAO away from establishing simple points of reference moving people; people can refer back to these reference points, and make use of them moving forward.
I wouldn’t call it a big risk or sell-pressure trigger to establish simple reference points like a roadmap variation.
Having a roadmap is a great idea…BUT…In a growing start-up there are more ideas that are pivoted than ideas that hold the course…A person of this start-up’s ecosystem would view this as a crazy random acts that are going zig-zag…We need to give it some more time…
Adding governance is a cost…Once we grow big and mature as an organization, we can add (IMHO)
Note: We haven’t yet celebrated our 1st annual day…
I love the thought of more insight & information for future projections, dev plans, etc… (ie: Roadmap); but would we be asking the dev team to be adding more to their plates than they are already doing? Then there is also the downside of needing to publicly defend a delay, or other issues when something doesn’t go as planned. Charles Hoskinson & Cardano is a great example of creating high expectations with timelines only to address the disappointed ADA holders and critics to what happened and why it happened and what the new future holds. Don’t get me wrong, Charles does a fantastic job! But with only 1 public face for TIME (Wonderland), we will be asking Daniele to step forward in this role and capacity. I honestly think he would better serve us (the TIME Stakers) continuing to do what he is doing.
Secondly, Daniele has a great mind and drive for this and we should continue to trust his vision and future path. We can see it coming together in his current collective work. He is creating a very sound and self sustaining financial ecosystem. Does everyone think the traditional global financial power brokers are just sitting on their hands watching the developments of these protocols and crypto ecosystems replace them? I would rather not hand over a public playbook (Roadmap) for them to devise schemes to weaken or attempt to destroy something as important as individual financial freedom and independence. This is just my humble opinion.