This task is already handled by the JUP core team, and I would say that in this instance its actually good to lean into what you’re alluding to as conflict of interest. I don’t see the conflict – team wants valuable workgroups as do we all, and the summaries are objective and fair. Example: Trial Budgets for the 3 new WGs! by Soju.
I don’t want you to feel discourage, but its important that we evaluate all proposals critically. Something many people are not considering, but really ought too – is factoring in the viability of AI tooling.
How I would approach the task/service that you’re proposing - is to simply copy/paste proposal threads into AI tool and ask it to ‘summarize and word more objectively’. That takes about 1 minute, and at current we’ve had 7 proposals total over 3 months.
I don’t think you need a team to do what your offering, or $6,000.-- rather rethink how to do things more efficiently.
There is an issue with casual voters not absorbing relevant information before the vote – but I don’t think adding more text-based content is going to alleviate the issue – no matter where it is placed. To understand the issue more – I would posture that we see casual voting because the process of voting itself is rather casual. Its a yes/no, 1-click and done. Some have suggested things like short-questionaries to filter casual voting, but I know that will only frustrate most people.
Would like you to review this thread here > Proposal: Gauge Voting w/ "DAO Treasury"
There is multiple ways to improve voter engagement, but overall I don’t believe a specific working group that generates more content is going to attract attention of casual voters who don’t really give their attention to existing content let alone additional.
Once again, don’t feel discouraged – this is just my opinion on your proposal. Thanks again for making the effort and considering how to tackle some of these issues. 