The proposal wants to engage software engineering companies into the Cardano ecosystem and get the developers involved as active Catalyst members.

The proposer prepares Cardano technology and Catalyst platform educational materials to be presented to the developers of the software engineering companies so as to attract them to actively become proposers, Cardano developers, community advisors, voters and Ada holders. For the proposers, lead them to submit quality and relevant proposals.

These above are all addressing the goals of the campaign challenges.

The proposer is an enthusiast of Cardano, a university associate professor with experience in scientific and educational presentation materials, has links academia and industries, and advisor to scientific journal reviews. His qualifications and experience will contribute to the success of the proposal.

However I have not sighted the goals set although KPIs are specified. I also have difficulty understanding how the investment of 7200 USD is to be disbursed.

For this reason I would stay neutral that this proposal effectively addresses the challenge.

Approaching developers and introducing Cardano is a good way to attract potential participants because tech-related people are always the ones who are easily interested in crypto currency and more familiar with making money online. Thanks for their base knowlege, they will easy to understand and believe in the vision of Cardano. However, it is necessary to choose which companies to implement the project because in my opinion many developers might know and care about crypto currency in general and Cardano in particular. So it can be a waste of effort if they have already been active members of Catalyst before.

I totally agree with the idea from the proposer. We as the community need to have some ways to introduce Cardano & Project Catalyst to professionals, especially in the software engineering fields. Out of many blockchain projects, we have to show what are the advantages and recommendations that Cardano can offer. The impact could be huge with global outreach. However, it would be better if the proposer could provide a specific industry as the starting point. The hard part is knowing which could have immediate benefits from Cardano & Project Catalyst and whether this project could scale perfectly.

The idea behind this proposal is to create educational content aimed at developers and software engineering companies to further the engagement with the Cardano development ecosystem and Project Catalyst. While this proposal is in the ballpark of the challenge's goals, it fails to specifically address the key points for success. What kind of educational content will be created? For what purpose? What specific kind of developer/software development company will the educational content be aimed at? How will they be contacted, at what frequencies and in what contexts?

In order for this proposal to be more closely aligned with the goals of this challenge, it needs to clearly state and specify objectives with actionable execution steps. The impact section for this proposal felt like a paraphrase of the Campaign Brief, which would have been fine, had it been cited and built upon instead of this very general approach.

The proposer seeks to create educational materials for developers in order to onboard them by presenting Cardano technology and the Catalyst platform. This will be followed up by visits/roadshows to various companies. Unfortunately, it is not explained in detail what are those educational materials. Will be about Haskell? Will it be about Plutus? Will it inform of the Atala Prism classes? It is not clearly defined. The only effort to define their deliverables are the mentioning of presenting the Catalyst funding opportunities to these companies. Other than there are no further effort to elaborate on the educational material side of things. Simple example would be to state they will collaborate with X from Catalyst School in developing content for developers.

Then there is the second part of this proposals solution, is having a roadshow to various companies. Not one name of a company is mentioned by the proposer. The third part of this proposal is, having online and offline meetings. It is not explained the format of this online meeting. Will it be a Zoom workshop session? Will it be a 1-to-1 discussions? Will it be a developers Town Hall. No explanation is provided.

The Proposal will introduce Cardano technology and the Catalyst platform to Software Engineering Companies, thereby attracting and bringing together the Companies' developers to become active Catalyst members. The proponent will compile a set of educational materials and visit various companies to demonstrate the Cardano technology and the Catalyst platform. This will help developer teams submit high-quality proposals in Catalyst funds, attract them to become proposers, Cardano developers, community advisors, voters, and ADA holders, and advise on how to submit proposals that are relevant to the future Catalyst challenges. The idea of this proposal aligns with the goal of this challenge.

Proposer does identify a solution that would address key goal set in the campaign - increasing the quality of teams proposing in funding rounds. Having qualified teams aware of possibilities in Catalyst would add value to the whole Cardano ecosystem. If successful, it could be scaled to reach more audience.

The proposer specifically mentions Catalyst and onboarding software engineers (or teams of engineers) from companies, and of designing the material with the explicit goal of encouraging the developers to make proposals on Catalyst. My main question about this proposal is just what kind of impact does the proposer envision coming from these developers? I can imagine professional teams of developers making proposals for projects, but when I focus in on the cohort, the image gets fuzzy: aren't these developers, by definition, already busy on projects? Is there a phenomenon where development teams in companies are looking for more projects to take on? Where is the business or shareholders in this plan, and do they need to be onboarded to the training, if not the proposal? Maybe the proposer's approach is to look at teams or companies that could pivot from how they are approaching their current projects, and adopt blockchain/DLT solutions going forward. What kinds of businesses does he have in mind for these conversions? What conversions does he see being compatible with Cardano, and what kind of projects are these developers bringing to Catalyst? I am generally curious if the materials he creates is intended to be opensource. If he successfully were to build out a targeted educational onboarding ramp for one or more of the areas above, having that model available to others (especially people within companies that see opportunities for their peers) and offering consultancy on the model might be a good scaling model that could be adopted.

The proposal presented the measure of progress by the number of target companies presented with the Cardano Catalyst ecosystem materials, the the number of new proposals submitted by the target companies, the number of advisors, voters, Ada holders, and the number of approved proposals in the Catalyst Funds, it does not however set the target number of each (goals).

This presents a progress review not possible. This, I strongly disagree that this proposal provides me with sufficient information to assess the progress in attaining its stated goals.

The proposal need to be more details: key metrics in each stage of the roadmap should includes number of each KPI to make the KPI measurable. They should set more specific goal for these: Number of companies presented to the Catalyst ecosystem Number of new proposals submitted by the companies Number of new community advisors, voters, and ADA holders Number of approved proposals in Catalyst funds." The proposal also should mention to how to indentify which developer teams from different companies to contribute distinctively to the improvement of the Cardano community come from the result of their activities to prove their success.

Apart from the very vague success metrics that fail to propose measurable KPIs for auditing purposes, no additional information is given to help the community decide on whether the project was successful or not. The proposer should have detailed the roadmap with identifiable goals which would have reflected his capacity to successfully prove that a suitable solution to the challenge will be attained.

The Auditability metric provided by the proposers is fine, but it still needs some specific milestones with deliverable time. The proposer should also provide types of delivery channels for the project monitoring. It could be in the forms of a website, social media posts, YouTube channel, GitHub, etc.

There is no detailed action plan, no detailed budget, credentials that lead to no data and progress metrics that are vague. Add to that no effort to provide the community a concept on how they will report their progress. Would they setup a GitHub? Would they record their online sessions? All are missing from this proposal.

The proposal provides criteria to measure the progress and development of the project such as: Number of companies presented to the Catalyst ecosystem, number of new proposals submitted by the companies, number of new community advisors, voters, and ADA holders, number of approved proposals in Catalyst funds. These indicators can be measured, however, the proposal does not state the project's goals with specific data to be achieved by the project, so it will be difficult for the community to assess the success of the project.

General milestones are set and could be monitored, although lack of clarity on deliverables might hinder actual evaluation. KPIs are vague, as set success measures could be caused by other actors in the ecosystem. Committing to specific deliverables that are quantifiable and verifiable would greatly increase auditability of the project.

Again, we really need to know what the targets are here. Is the project complete after two presentations? Four? More? The early reporting should be functional enough, as the proposer can report the collaboration numbers for the educational material (including defining the target cohort) and then present the material as a deliverable for the month (and opensource, ideally). But it gets sketchy after that: if two presentations are reported for month 2, is the progress on track? We need numbers here. A final suggestion: if the proposer doesn't know in advance who can be approached with this program, perhaps a version of it that pivots to research, by structuring a couple of different types of material and then seeing what kinds of situations and problems software development teams are bringing to the table, and then use the feedback to iterate the resources and THEN execute this protocol, with a solid base for the numbers.