I prefer to go with my instinct when making decisions about proposals. My personal opinion is that formalising decision-making based on a set of scores and pre-determined communal values can lead to a flattening of creativity and missed opportunities. Rubrics can be useful for guiding processes but in my view, decision-making on proposals for a DAO is not procedural, it's based on too many other variables.

I think of this as a public good and resource for all DAOs. I don’t think of this as a prescriptive way to vote but as a personal tool to help your thinking. I’m also interested in the artifacts that result from interviewing members and learning about their decision making process.

i've decided to abstain on this vote. Although I think this work could be valuable to the overall DAO ecosystem (even more so than Builder itself), I don't think this is the right time for this project. However, I'm conscious of putting too heavy of a hand on this vote so I'm abstaining but encouraging Zamees and team to consider bringing it back in the new year if this doesn't pass now. I would have liked to have seen more votes from members to get a better feel for overall sentiment on this one but this might be a demo of why we need to move L2 since voting is costing quite a bit right now.

This is a very well-presented proposal. Personally I'm not a fan of this kind of tool for making decisions, it's certainly not something I would use, but this is not primarily why I'm voting against the proposal. My understanding is that this proposal is to fund the first stage of the project, that developers would need to be hired to implement the second stage and we don't have a ballpark cost for that. I also agree with The Prof that I don't think this is the right time for the project.

Voting on behalf of Purple https://snapshot.org/#/purpdao.eth/proposal/0x40818a7e6346c7a229dd5bb10cbb868f7e4d938f8aef0cae25ee6ede4efbe1f7

I support the concept of this project, the proposer, and the team behind it. Ultimately though the DAO members themselves must want to utilize this tooling so would like to see broader support come from the community. However, I'd very much be in favor of reconsidering this proposal and voting in favor of it once we have more clarity around how we budget moving forward and the team working towards broader support for this tooling.

I like the idea of this as an optional tool. I don’t think it should be implemented with an expectation to use it though. Would support funding it as a standalone/independent tool, but I can’t get behind the end goal of formal or complete integration here.