Thanks for publishing this mandate in a standalone topic. I think the clarity here is a big step forward. Narrowing scope makes sense, especially if the goal is to rack up early wins and build legitimacy.
One thing I’d like to surface, drawing from my experience with governance processes in other ecosystems (Jito on Solana, for example), is the importance of governance memory and outcome tracking.
Right now, you’ve set ambitious goals around economic governance and technical governance. But both of these will generate decisions whose outcomes will only become clear months later. (e.g., whether a treasury allocation program supported sustainability, or whether a change to inflation parameters impacted validator and user participation.)
In my view, HoS can strengthen legitimacy by not only making decisions, but also by tracking and reviewing them over time. This doesn’t need to be heavy-weight: even a simple system for logging proposals, mapping intended outcomes, and setting lightweight review checkpoints (30/60/90 days) can go a long way in (1) providing transparency, (2) making governance more data-driven, and (3) reinforcing the community’s trust that we’re learning as we go.
I’ve been working on a framework I call the Governance Memory System (GMS), which is essentially a structured way to log governance actions, track outcomes, and loop learnings back into future decisions. I’d be happy to share a small pilot example with HoS if it’s useful, even applied to a single proposal, to show how this could slot into the current mandate without expanding scope too much.
To me, this ties directly into the “build legitimacy” and “grow engagement and ecosystem health” pillars of the mandate. It ensures HoS doesn’t just make decisions, but also demonstrates accountability for those decisions over time.