Unfortunately, again a disappointing, more or less meaningless set of measures.
Governance has yet to see a vote on a measure that would clearly define at least the very basics of both Governance and xGov programs - Algorand constitution if you will.
The unequal treatment of ALGO in Governance remains, e.g. ALGO in LPs do not need to be maintained above the initially committed limit while ALGO in regular and other DeFi Governance options must; or that the ALGO in certain LPs is not taken into account; or that only ALGO in certain protocols are allowed to participate in Governance even though the the registration and vote transactions cannot be issued by them. This just shows that the Governance program has not moved at all on the scale of decentralization since it began now almost two years ago.
Moreover, there has been a lack of progress on the transparency of the program. Multiple councils have been established that are influencing proposal of measures but neither the establishment of the councils nor its members have been confirmed by the Governors. The councils’ discussions are not public, rules on who and how can become part of it are unknown, etc.
Despite having now a dedicated role of Governance Program Manager at the Foundation, it is unclear who is really in charge of the program and accountable for it, what is the program’s road map and the community’s role in it, etc.
A clear example of the lack of accountability and decentralization of the program is the implementation of the xGov program.
The Governors approved measure 2 of Governance period 5, where it was stated:
If this Measure is approved, Algos would be made available for projects proposed by the whole community, upvoted by the xGovs and approved by General Governors.
The current xGov program does not follow this decision as it lets xGovs approve the founds instead of simply upvoting them. Approval of this change has not been put up to the Governance vote.
Governance being as vaguely structured and run as it is, it is driving the community away, which can be seen already by the number of comments on these current measures compared to past engagement levels.
The perceived lack of seriousness of the programs can also be seen by the fact that in the two years of the program, not one large stake holder, Algorand Inc. as the protocol developer, or a business developing on Algorand showed any serious engagement in the program (unless it was to further their own agenda through shallow comments to get a higher split of the “rewards”).
To end this comment, I would appeal to the official authors of these measures to lead by example towards higher transparency and accountability, and at least issue a measure asking the community if you personally have their support to lead the program further. If you are not allowed to put such a measure up to the vote by the ones higher in the hierarchy, this would be already very telling.