As we stated on our delegation platform, we initially voted against the proposal, as we do not consider it good governance practice to promote debate and exchange of views by publishing a proposal on a Friday and bringing it to a vote just 24 hours later, on a Saturday. There is no justification for proceeding with such urgency.
Regarding the substance of the proposal, we echo @ChronoTrigger’ considerations and add that producing educational content about Rootstock requires prior coordination with the Lab and/or the DAO to ensure that the quality meets expected standards. It is also necessary to establish a clear framework for the use of Rootstock’s intellectual property, as well as to define in what capacity the presenters would be acting. This is particularly important given that these proposed events would be organized by a chain-agnostic web3 community, and they will not include the presence of the Lab team or official Rootstock ambassadors, which requires a higher level of rigor in both content and communication.
We encourage the author to resubmit the proposal, providing sufficient time for discussion and addressing the initial feedback provided by the delegates.