Supportive of the program overall, thanks @Coltron.eth for putting this together.
For disclosure, Curia applied to SPP2 as well so this is partly from an applicant-side perspective. Two things worth considering:
First, on feedback for non-selected applicants. The proposal already commits the committee to publish rationale for the selected cohort which is great, but it would be really helpful if non-selected applicants also got written feedback within ~14 days of cohort ratification. Doesn’t need to be public, just private to the applicant. Helps teams improve for future cycles and adds some rigor on the committee side too.
Second, seconding @vegayp point on conflict resolution. The current language is a bit thin for a program this size. A simple documented path would help: Chair receives complaints, initial response within 7 days, escalation to accountability body if unresolved, and outcome documented publicly. Protects both applicants and the committee.
Also agree with @lightwalker.eth that SPP3 timeline should respect SPP2 Q4 deliverables. We don’t have that conflict ourselves but the principle matters for future cycles.
Will support either way, but think the above would make the program stronger.