IIP-128 - Priority Hiring Round #1

Governance Proposal
7

Hey @Matthew_Graham :wave:

Excellent questions:

  1. As per [IIP-118] there is a two month severance period on forced Terminations. If someone wishes to exit from the arrangement above voluntarily, we would expect a 1 month notice period to be provided.

  2. Offboarding is one of the most challenging topics DAOs face, and doing it with respect, transparency and professionalism is a tricky line to tread (let’s not do offboarding like Maker). As such, one of Community Nest’s Season 1 projects is the launch of a formal offboarding framework.

  3. Community Nest will be proposing a list of C.Nest contributors, their Owl Levels and the overall costing of the DSM for this group as part of our Season 1 proposal. The Council can then provide feedback on DSM and Owl Levels as part of the general approval process for C.Nest S1 budget.

    Recognising the stark philosophical differences within the Council on inclusivity for the DSM, I would imagine this will come down to a Council vote - with the rationale behind the decision on who can access the DSM then communicated publically.

    @kindeagle I know we have discussed this topic 1:1 and so hopefully this recommended approach addresses some of your questions around wider access to the DSM.

  4. I believe this question is asking “how will we know the DSM is successful”. There are two main aspects to this:

    A. Did contributors on the DSM increase their INDEX holdings, either by retaining their salaried INDEX or by purchasing on the market

    B. What is the Retention rate on INDEX delivered through the DSM

    We are working with @anthonyb.eth and @prairiefi to establish robust analytics on both “A” and “B” to monitor the overall success of the DSM. Personally, I would be extremely disappointed if the retention rate was <65%. However, we won’t get this information for another 6 months due to the DSM vest. This means we are presently focused on analysing contributors salary retention and buying behaviour as a result of the DSM launch (i.e. A).

  5. Correct, there is no hard requirement for existing FT folks to move to the new package. Offer letters have been issued and none of the FT folks who are on the priority hiring list has chosen to remain on their existing package versus transitioning to the new framework.

Hopefully with those questions addressed, and in the spirit of 80:20, we can move this forward to IIP. This will enable us to compensate Priority Hires under the new reward framework for their January contributions.

@sixtykeys could you assign an IIP number and queue this vote up for snapshot at your earliest possible convenience?

3 Likes