@lftherios thanks for the feedback and additional context added on the Proposal Review call. After @bordumb 's changes above, please also allow me to add my point of view as well here:
With the additional context you shared on the November Proposals review call, I think this is already in line with how we were planning things, because there is one important differentiating factor between this proposal and the other 3 org proposals for 2024:
The Grants Org would have budget to assign to the Grantees (e.g. my team), but it is still up to the Grants Committee to assign / approve this budget during the year (e.g. on a quarterly basis), based on where things stand at the time.
So, from my point of view, assigning this particular budget to the Grants Org:
- does not mean the budget is already available to the Grantees - we would still need to submit Grant proposals throughout the year and have those approved by the Grants committee, as has been the case so far,
- does not necessarily mean we’ll use the budget to build the tools mentioned above, because:
- the onboarded communities might require others,
- we’ll discover different needs in collaboration with the Radicle core team (and submit Grants for that),
- does not necessarily mean this budget will even be used up completely (in the worst case that “radicle 1.0” is delayed for months and somehow isn’t shipped, the Grants committee can simply reject these proposals).
- on the other hand, having this budget assigned to the Grants Org is a strong indication that there is some budget available for us to sustain a team that has reliably been taking on (and delivering) grants in the past 18 months. To echo (and amplify, if I may) the point that @bordumb made on the call, sourcing software engineers
- of some seniority, so they have the capacity to contribute individually,
- that are comfortable working in open source,
- to contribute in a less-than-part-time capacity, when they already have a full-time job (and a life outside that),
- in today’s market of high demand for engineering talent,
- in a risky (pre-alpha) project,
- that pays in crypto
… has been nothing short of challenging for me personally 
and also, if I may say so, less than optimal for the work itself.
Having at least some of us in a more full-time capacity (through longer-term grants, always approved / overseen by the Grants committee) would be considerably more efficient and, I think, beneficial for everyone:
- we can put more of time into Radicle: less context switching, more dedication/focus,
- the Radicle core team can focus on the protocol / core product itself and not worry about everything else that falls a little outside that scope and they don’t want to focus on - but is still necessary to build a complete offering around the forge,
- the Radworks community (that pays for this) gets good value (our rates are not more expensive, in fact the opposite - despite the on/off nature of the work) and more efficient allocation of capital.
Apologies for the long text, I just wanted to also try and capture the Grantee point of view on this proposal and ensure that Radworks token holders who will be voting have also heard our side of the story as well… : )
Thanks for your time, support and feedback !