I hear and understand your perspective; however, this is not community consensus. Many people do support the current system and having people dedicated to established organizational processes in a decentralized ecosystem. This is best practice in many open source and blockchain ecosystems, not only our own. Committees and working groups are not a quirk of the Secret ecosystem; they are a feature of successful and product ecosystems that we are trying to emulate and improve. Other ecosystems have tried many different iterative structures with varying degrees of success (the Zcash ecosystem in particular deserves study, though we’re in a meaningfully different phase of maturity).
There is established community consensus on one point (we established this consensus on this week’s governance call but also in our conversation channels): All committees require charters, leadership, and accountability. There are many committees that will not have easily measurable projects or KPIs (such as Business Development or Design) that are still essential to community organization and ultimate success. I strongly do not favor moving to a strictly project-based approach with no project management or coordination functions.
One improvement seems clear enough from the feedback in this thread, even: introduce better incentives for project-based work. This is already being tried, and it is the intent of SNACs. There’s so many sources of funding for complex projects (including the on-chain and ecosystem pools). Using those sources of funding effectively does not remove the lead for leadership. Committee leads have produced a large amount of work independently in addition to their leadership responsibilities, and I’m sure they don’t appreciate being depicted as rent-seeking middle management.