You’re absolutely right about this tradeoff. The current system in SPP Season 2 is designed to rank providers first, not individual projects or budgets. This was the explicit intent stated in [EP 6.3].
The original amendment operates within this provider-first paradigm. Rather than automatically defaulting to extended budgets, it adds the explicit choice between basic and extended budgets on an applicant - while preserving the core principle of ranking providers as the primary selection criteria.
I understand your position that ranking providers first might be sub-optimal in some cases. I can easily get behind the appeal of a deliverables-based system where we vote for tasks with price tags. If that’s what we want, let’s not stop at your suggestion - let’s actually do it by removing the min-max amounts, allowing any applicant to propose any number of tasks that are rankable in the vote, and really coming up with a selection mechanism that works for that system. We could even give them guidance using an RFP method for the desired projects (as has been suggested).
But making it deliverables-based or project-based would require us to rethink some fundamental aspects like KPIs. What if a team learns that their granted project isn’t going to bear fruit? After all, it was the project that was funded, not the team, so do we need to stop the funding of that project? This would also require a different application process than what we just went through.
That’s why I think the original amendment is the way to go. It’s straightforward, people will get it, and it keeps what works within the current system while giving us some of the requested budget choice that was asked for.
Again, I love your suggestions for next year, or for this year if everyone agrees to really run it back and rethink the process holistically.
Final comment - There’s a danger we push this conversation too far, if we haven’t already. Just to reiterate, we’ve had unanimous support for the original amendment in every interactive call that metagov has hosted, so it’s really hard not to believe this is the DAO’s preference. To date, you are the only delegate who has openly stated they don’t support it.