I'd also preface my comments here with a thanks to @tex for the thinking and for pushing through with many of the discussion points around governance and leadership that have come up in different discussions over the past few months.
That said, agreed with @EdgeCaser that two very distinct questions are being rolled into one poll here. The concept of a Leadership council (as per Synthetix' Spartan Council) is one I agree with and one that I definitely support - as I've said in other discussions there is a definite growth curve towards full decentralisation and on-chain governance and it is good that we are responding to that with a leadership environment that acknowledges there are a fair few steps to get there and builds a structure right for now.
Who is on that Council should be an entirely separate discussion and should not be rolled into the Council poll. Moving to the Council model is a big step and should be one discussed in detail and agreed across the community.
Having said that, it is worth acknowledging here that my expectation in splitting this would be that there would be very low participation across both polls, as there is currently very low participation across a large percentage of the polls.
Leading to some thoughts on the structure of the Council and the OKR's.
As discussed above in @m_j_r 's comments, the suggested framework sounds like it will work really well in limiting liability and closing execution gaps (which I agree seems to be needed), it also looks to heavily focus on Operational requirements and needs and looking to close up gaps in these - which is positive.
That said, while I personally believe that Ohm is becoming more and more of a B2B play and as such retail marketing is ultimately less important (Proteus, Olympus Pro, Artemis etc are all B2B products ultimately and should be marketed as such), there is still a need for increased clarity, transparency and communication to retail to assist with achieving DAO-wide 3. The overall stats for participation reflect a generally falling level of interest in participating in Ohm (even among wallet holders) - I'd love to see more obvious linkages in the above to communications and marketing (not whales or market makers but to retail and smaller holders).
Excellent delivery solves half the problem, without seeing the duck legs under the water (and any associated challenges) I can say as an investor that I can never fault on the level of delivery - I can totally understand the continued desire to ensure that delivery is efficient and effective and that contributors are effectively compensated for that delivery. Highly effective comms and marketing is the other side of the problem and the side that I still feel is never addressed as effectively.
Summary on all of that, I'll vote yes on this because it seems like a good way forward, with concerns around the way that this is put forward and associated concerns around some of the focus areas and the continued feeling that participation as a concern isn't effectively addressed.
Love youse all Ohmies.