I can provide some context. While working on an updated version of OBRA based on the comments here and based on feedback from others, it became clear that there are a few dependencies to resolve before a resource allocation framework like OBRA in its current version can be functional and effective.
For instance, the legal state of SafeDAO and its relation to the Safe Ecosystem Foundation (see also here) currently limits how SafeDAO could operate through OBRA. Within the Safe team, I’m working with legal and finance on a description of the status quo to give everyone a better idea of what these dependencies are.
Also, discussing OBRA within the Safe team led to related discussions around a broader product vision that SafeDAO could choose to pursue, with lots of open questions on details and timeline. From my side, it seems that some level of detail and timeline of these discussions should be defined first, before we define an implementation framework like OBRA (which then can be optimised for a more tangible short-term roadmap on what exactly OBRA will allocate resources to).
Once these discussions reach a point when they are ready to be shared here for discussion, they will be shared here, of course. In this case, OBRA opened a bit of a rabbit hole which just takes a bit longer to get to the bottom of.
These are just my2cents. @pet3rpan-1kx and others, please correct me if I’m wrong or missed something.