Hey @links, as always, I appreciate your though-provoking questions!
Fair point. I’m for leaving the conversation here open. Further, this template can be revisited and improved over time with improvements suggested in the Working Document: Google Doc and here under this post.
Per our constitution, the GC responsibility is “To vet groups seeking midseason funding and consequently ensure funded entities provide ongoing transparency into the state of their development.” However, @Bananachain, @tesa_fc and I were tasked to create several proposal templates to incorporate the new changes to our governance structure, with guilds, departments and projects as our organizational units.
The goal is to align on a single source of truth, basically. Centralising knowledge, improving based on decentralised governance. Up until today, some projects were using the Proposal Template and some Governance Proposal Template to create their budget proposals. The goal is to align on a single source of truth, basically. Centralising knowledge, improving based on decentralised governance.
I don’t see an issue here. The project can in both cases reference to the respective guild. Perhaps I don’t understand your question though 
Love your level of detail. Feel free to suggest edits this improvement in Working Document: Google Doc and here under this post. We can revisit and adapt this post based on the input that’s going to flow into the google doc.
I think it’s in general a valuable piece of information. Sometimes proposal are a created and submitted within days, sometimes within months. This can be easily gamed as it depends on the trustworthiness of members though so no, we can scrap that part perhaps. 
As far as I’m aware of, the purpose was to get a punch-line. So like “Cut through the noise with actionable & insightful research”. Or “Your passport to web3” 
I thought of it as the first sentence on the first slide of a pitch deck that gets potential “investors” hooked.
We, currently, don’t have official agreements to enforce these rules/policies. However, it’s important to track them and hold PCs accountable. Going forward, tools like Outcome.finance and decision policies, we agree upon as a community and code into our constitution, will help us enforce rules and penalize projects for not hitting their goals.
One can understand this section as long-term alignment with the DAO, yes. A project is expected to either kick-back 10% of revenue to bDAOs’ treasury or create utility for the BanklessDAO token. I think the latter is more important, given that we can’t really enforce kick-backs, at least atm.
The idea has been going around on discord (not directly communicated by HQ btw) that projects, which kick-back x≥10% of their revenue for x≥1 year let’s say, could be eligible for an exclusive ‘ad’ spot on the Bankless HQ podcast. This would create incentive alignment with the DAO, HQ, and the projects we fund. It would close the loop. @rsa, @Trust_David & @0x_Lucas what do you think?
Good call!