A hiring model for wider solicitation of talent

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

4 Likes

Full disclosure of self-interest: I would actively like to work more closely with the Sushi team and would like to participate as a candidate in such an interview process myself.

1 Like

I like the idea of a standardized process for any hiring that is done for the team. It helps:

  1. Clears up ambiguity regarding anyone that disagrees with a decision after its made
  2. Having a set of rules to be followed and not deviate from them and make ad-hoc decisions
  3. Gives a chance to anyone who isn’t already on the “team” or vocal on Discord to come in and state why they would be a good candidate.
2 Likes

With you on this. At the very least, there needs to be a formalized interview/qualifications vetting process.

I am for this proposal and would also like to participate in the process of qualifying the candidates, could possibly add that in to the talkshow @magicturtle an myself are starting up.

2 Likes

Definitely pro formalizing the interview+hiring process!
We’d love to offer time on the weekly community podcast to interview+discuss community member’s skills and background. That’s a great idea @overly_ambitious. We’re not intending the podcast-link-in to be any sort of formal interviewing process, just a chance for you to share who you are with the community! :slight_smile:
But also the aim is to have anyone participating in the podcast to be there entirely voluntarily, so if you don’t feel comfortable coming on to chat that is A-Ok. Either way, me and @overly_ambitious will continue on with the show.
:turtle:

1 Like

Ideally we implement a vetting/interview system ASAP as we continue building out the core team. Our multisig process was phenomenally successful and we should seek to replicate that in the future.

This proposal received some excellent discussion in Discord today in the #proposals-discussion channel, I’m going to post summaries of some of the different stances taken here for people on the forum to see too:

@BoringCrypto weighed in with the idea that early participants in Sushi should be prioritized as candidates in a way that this proposal does not account for. Early participants in Sushi devoted time and resources for no pay and no expectation of pay when the community was going through some serious turmoil and their dedication to the project far outweighs any later applicant. This idea was very popularly received by Thalex, @zafalijadev , @ctrl , Ryan | VantageCrypto, and @AdamSC1.

Thalex and ctrl expressed particular concerns that this system would result in a poorly-functioning team by committee.

Adam ultimately best summarized it with the following well-reasoned criticisms of the proposal which I will duplicate for the forum verbatim here:

  1. Just because users vote for a group of people, does not mean they will collectively work well together. While voting for leadership makes sense, trying to vote for and select each candidate within a system will not create a cohesive working system.

  2. This model creates a race to the bottom. The reality is that the only non-subjective component that would be considered in your model is price of a candidate which will be directly compared against really their eloquence in either chat or oration. So you’ve created a race condition prime for some popularity contest tyranny of the majority in which the best speakers in ratio to their salary request get in. The exact horror that happens far to often in government.

  3. This model for some reason, has baked into it, the fallacious conclusion that a decentralized community has the knowledge and expertise to select candidates for roles at a large-scale fintech startup? It is one thing to pick a leader, leaders are selected on the basis of vision, ambition and their ability to rally individuals to a cause. Operators on the other hand are put in place on the merit of their expertise, something totally opaque to the average user. Leaders hire based on team need and operator expertise. Not populous vote.

Suffice it to say, bringing this proposal forward to the Discord community for more active discussion has worked out some serious issues in the idea and has changed my stance personally on the amount of “teeth” that should be applied to a public interview phase for candidates. I no longer believe that such a binding process as laid out here would be beneficial for Sushi. I think we can just leave this thread around for posterity to track the discussion in it.

3 Likes

Very well thought and written.