Summary
The Sushi community is full of talented individuals who could strengthen the core team. When hiring for roles on the Sushi team, we should try to trawl as deeply as possible from the pool of available talent. A formal interview process will let Sushi users get a sense of the skills available in their own community in a manner which is easier to track than ad-hoc Discord discussions.
Abstract
The most recent process for hiring was illustrated with @ctrl’s inclusion as COO, so I will use that situation as an example here. The community voted him into his role overwhelmingly after a period of discussion primarily on Discord and we are all very happy with ctrl. Fundamentally, however, the only COO option available for the community to vote for was ctrl. The only vote the community could cast was whether we wanted ctrl or did not want ctrl, and the outcome of not electing ctrl was not clear. A more formal solicitation window would at least turn this hiring process into more of a public interview with multiple candidates for the community to choose from.
The Sushi community has already used this kind of system. We saw tremendous success with using this system for selecting the agents in control of Sushi’s multisignature wallet and ended up with a very talented pool to select the top nine from. Therefore, we should have a public solicitation and interview process before voting people into roles.
Motivation
The motivation behind this proposal is primarily to make sure that the Sushi community is aware of all the talent contained within itself and best able to select individuals to the core team. This proposal has the side-effect of exposing some lesser-known members of the Sushi community who might still be excellent fits for particular roles but do not have as strong of a Discord presence.
Specification
Let’s look at an example for trying to hire a janitor to scrub Sushi’s toilets.
Rather than moving forward with votes such as, “do we want to see Tim hired as the janitor: yes or no?” @0xMaki states the needed role on the team to be filled. Namely, 0xMaki would basically tell the community: “hey, we need a janitor.” This then begins a public interview phase.
Tim and everyone else who wants to be considered for the role of janitor shares with the community a resume, potential qualifications, perhaps an introductory video, answers questions from the community in a series of interviews in Discord, etc. There is significant time to vet the candidates before beginning a vote on the multiple candidates, with the community ultimately deciding who they want to hire.
For example:
- Tim applies to be a janitor. He has one year of cleaning experience and wants $200k.
- Andy applies to be a janitor. He has 20 years of cleaning experience and wants $90k.
Under the proposed interview model, the community gets to consider whether they’d like to vote for Andy directly instead of having to first wait for the “do we want to hire Tim yes/no” vote to fail with a “no”. This proposal saves time when considering multiple candidates and, even better, makes sure that such a qualified and reasonable candidate as Andy is considered in the first place and Tim doesn’t win the election just because he was the first vote.
For
The way the Sushi community conducts hiring members of the team for roles changes to include a formal interview process followed by a single period of election-style voting similar to the way we conducted the multisignature election.
Against
The way the Sushi community conducts hiring does not change.
Poll
- I want to add a formal interview phase to team hiring similar to what the multisignature election featured.
- I do not want to change hiring.
0 voters
