Let me start by saying that I support the temporary need for a Council out of necessity. At times, Olympus feels like we're trying to steer the Titanic when we need to be a speedboat. More importantly, we need to be a speedboat that agrees on where we're going and how we're getting there. The disconnect between Core, Strategos, and the DAO that @tex mentioned hinders us from doing this in many ways.
I'm also generally supportive of the new members of the Council but agree with @nach211 that we absolutely need Marketing/Communications representation. We build some amazing products at a blistering pace, but our ability to promote, educate, and inform the Community on why these products are important, how to use them, and what they mean for Olympus at-large is lacking.
**Other feedback:
**
1. I do not think this OIP should be split into two separate OIPs. I personally don't think it's going to change the outcome (both a Council being established and the people on it), and the benefits we get by quickly streamlining coordination via a Council outweighs the risk we get something slightly wrong in this OIP. As @indigo said, this isn't set in stone. We'll continue to iterate, and more importantly, we're working towards on chain governance where a Council won't be needed.
2. Any good business focuses on people, product, and process. This OIP almost entirely focuses on process.
I think the Council should also be responsible for delivering a product roadmap (at least at a confidential / high-level manner as to not leak alfa) based on these OKRs. If that's Olympus12 still, then great. Declare as such. But if revisions or new strategies need to be introduced based on these OKRs, then we should define them, plan around them, execute on them, and be accountable for them.
I also think the council should be responsible for delivering a people plan. We have some REALLY talented people contributing to the DAO who would have no problem finding other opportunities. I'd like to see these people be incentivized to contribute long term a) to retain them (and their institutional knowledge for continuity), and b) so they are attached to the upside in the value they create. I know @twoeggs @hOHMwardbound @Stefano and many others worked hard on a comp plan, but it ultimately didn't get implemented. I'd like to see this topic brought back up as part of the Council's responsibility. The 'people' plan should also include soft benefits (e.g. time off, etc.). Ultimately, the goal imo is to make Olympus a no-brainer for why someone would want to contribute, and stay a contributor, to the DAO.
3. I agree that a rolling renewal of Council Members is a good idea. I think we need to give this group 6 months to get oriented, devise a plan, and execute. I'm confident this highly talented group of individuals are capable of doing so in that timeframe, but if they can't then we either need to rethink the Council's validity (as a concept in general) or whether we have the right people on the Council. After 6 months, a rolling schedule makes sense.