I can definitely agree that if the council originally approved some multi-milestone proposal, that generally OpenGov should approve paying out successful completion of that work.
In this case, it seems the payout will cover the entirety of the approved proposal as milestone 2 + 3 were the last things noted on the overall proposal.
However, speaking hypothetically, I don’t think all such contracts should fit into being legacy supported. For example, previous support for reoccurring infrastructure projects from the council should not imply that these projects will perpetually be approved by OpenGov. Similarly, there are maybe some projects which have extremely long timelines, and many milestones, and these should be re-evaluated by OpenGov. Finally, there may also projects which council has approved, which token holders may not find valuable.
In general I might loosely suggest the following:
- We as token holders should mostly support the teams which have been approved by council and do good work for the next year (till June 2024), as we transition from Gov v1 to OpenGov.
- Teams which have milestones or projects which extend beyond a year should create a signaling proposal through OpenGov to at least see if there are any clear outstanding dissent for the proposals.
- If there are projects or teams which are getting shut down by OpenGov, when council has previously given support, we should call on previous council members to write an updated response on why token holders should support the proposal, or why their perspective has changed since their last commitment. Conversation can continue from there.
One last note is that I do not think the forum would benefit from having many posts which are “support my proposal #X”. In generally, I think we should ban such posts where there is no discussion around the proposal, just begging. (cc @Remy_Parity @rhee)
Clearly, this post does have a relevant topic to discuss, but you can see how others might read this differently.
P.S. I have submitted an AYE vote for your proposal.