[Hiring] Product Manager

There is already a DAO for that and a foundation would be a backward move centralizing the project. Moreover, for a project having the goal to be an institution encompassing all humans, setting itself under the jurisdiction of particular state would harm this purpose.
Anything a foundation can do, the DAO can do better.

Hello everyone,

Here are the answers from working with Clement as a PM applicant:

You can also visit the Figma file to comment and view the overall idea I proposed to add a new tab to the PoH interface called Work. There we could encourage registered humans, to use their $UBI to foment holding behavior. At the moment, the list of things that anyone can do with $UBI is growing - with the UBIDAI vault being a magnificent breakthrough, but we still have to find many more ways to include more population, hopefully with a goal to reach ALL humans

Unfortunately, I was not able to coherently answer any of the technical questions which disqualify me from that perspective. I still will remain active representing Proof of Humanity on meet-ups and innovation groups in Hamburg, Germany where I reside.

My abstracted visualization is this Work tab can be an interface of smart contracts that build on top of all the great work done so far. Kleros courts to resolve job-related disputes and this would improve each human’s PoH profile.


I look forward to any feedback and next steps needed to pick the next PM and get moving.



@clesaege, Clement could you update us on the progress? Which candidates have been interviewed, when are the rest of the interviews expected?

For transparency I had the following exchange with @clesaege today:

Me: Hi All! Is there any estimation of when can we expect to hear back from you?

Clément: Hi Paula, for now you’ve been 2 to have returned the exercises. There are also a bunch of other candidates who contacted us but didn’t post on the forum, so I think a good way would be to ask everyone to finish their exercises within one week once we get 5 exercises finished.

Me: Clément, as I’ve told you during a team meeting a couple weeks ago, I don’t think it’s ok to create a backdoor for applications which is ran by Kleros. If you wanted to advertise the position with Kleros’ profile that’s all good, but you should have told candidates to follow the procedures that were voted on by the DAO. This makes it so that the value of all of our governance system is undermined because you will simply go ahead and change rules without being accountable. Not to mention its extremely unfair to the other applicants. I’m posting this on the forum to clarify my position.


This statement is false, Paula never told me that. And the fact that the offer on cryptojoblist was only made the 19/06/21 proves that she definitely couldn’t have said that “a couple weeks ago”.

There is no “backdoor ran by Kleros”. All candidates have to follow the process outlined by HIP-2 and the fact that we may have private conversations with people interested by the position and give private feedback is explicitly outlined by HIP-2 (getting negative recommendations in public is not something a lot of people would like).

Paula also had private talks with potential developer candidates without this creating any issue.

I believe Paula is trying to undermine me (note that putting offers on cryptojoblist was approved by board members including someone of Democracy Earth) in preparation of a negative recommendation.
I believe that showing a confrontational strategy trying to surf on disagreements with Luis is led to failure.
Note that initially I thought that Paula was almost guaranteed to get the position and even wondered if it was fair for other applicant time. After interacting with her during the recruitment process, I can now say that those fears were unfounded.

This statement is false, Paula never told me that. And the fact that the offer on cryptojoblist was only made the 19/06/21 proves that she definitely couldn’t have said that “a couple weeks ago”.

I will bring a charitable perspective here and say that you might have forgotten this (instead of accusing you of making a false statement as you are doing to me), but some weeks ago a new recruitment procedure was posted in this forum where applicants were supposed to initiate their application through a form that was controlled by Kleros. Right after this was posted I went to a meeting in which you and many others were present, and I mentioned my concerns with the fact that by accepting applications through a form controlled by Kleros you were deviating from the rules that had been voted on by the DAO. Many who were present in the meeting agreed with me that it was indeed improper, so you deleted the post. In accepting direct applications now, you replicated the same practice that negates the procedures which had been voted on, thus I mentioned that I had brought this up before. I will not name names, but those who were present in the meeting are welcome to attest to this fact before the community, and clear this serious and untrue accusation I am receiving.

If the candidates did not apply in the forum, it means they did not abide by the following rules outlined on HIP-2:

"The recruitment process for positions offered by the DAO is as follows:

  1. Candidates submits an initial proposal which contains:
  • A resume.
  • A brief writing explaining why they would like to work for the DAO and why they think they would be a great fit.
  • The % of their working time they propose to allocate to the DAO, the requested compensation and its yearly equivalent full time. Ex: 50% for 6 months for a total pay of 25k$ (100k$ of yearly equivalent full time)."

Paula also had private talks with potential developer candidates without this creating any issue.

Yes, I talked to candidates and made a public blog post offering to have an initial conversation with them, but in doing so I made clear that in order to apply they should post publicly on the forum as was voted on by the DAO. Quoting from the blog post:

" How do I apply?

Applicants must submit a proposal in this thread, at the Proof of Humanity forum.

However, we understand that applying through a thread on a public forum might be off-putting, especially for a position with so much responsibility and visibility. We want to help! If you think you might be a great fit, and are interested in an initial chat to learn more about Proof of Humanity or the position, feel free to reach out via this form and the authors of this blog post will get in contact with all promising candidates to schedule a conversation!"

Ensuring this was as proper and transparent as possible, I also posted the blog post here on the forum:

It’s sad you are deflecting the critique by arguing that a legitimate concern for abiding by transparent and democratically voted on procedures is a strategy to gain support by members of this DAO. I am confident in the extremely hard work I’ve been doing for this community, and have no need to appeal to such schemes. Moreover, I hope that in the future we can develop a culture in which we have a safe space to discuss things without being the target of personal accusations of the type you are making.


Paula I never made any form, please stop baseless accusations.

That’s the exact same thing, glad that we agree.

The recruiting process seems that it is not the priority of the DAO, as it should be to accelerate the maturity. The only interview I had was from @Mads, which I am grateful for due to he was the only one taking the lead on the recruiting process. From that point, I have not been contacted, nor received any exercise to do. Although I asked about the form too, and I was told that it was erased.


Hi HBesso31, sorry I didn’t see you made an application. I just saw a post higher up the thread but didn’t see your resume. Could you add it or point to the post with your resume?

I also agree that not enough time was spent in recruiting and that’s what we added the posts on cryptojoblist. It led to a good amount of contacts and I hope they will make formal applications which will allow the DAO to have a fair and competitive recruiting process on those 2 positions.

I don’t see the reason to keep stalling ad aeternum this selection process. We need to move on and we need to make it wisely, and in a timely manner. Things like this reduce credibility in the project in increasing ways.


We need to move forward on this.

  • I lost track of the candidates and where we are in the process with each of them. Partially this is because the process got split into different places. Can anyone help?
  • What are the current blockers preventing a DAO vote?

cc @Mads @clesaege

1 Like

hmmm, If I get the issue right, the question is to prioritize expedience and end the application phase to select a Product manager. Is there urgency?

Is anyone familiar with the “Secretary Problem”? It relates to a hiring game in which a hypothetical company is hiring a secretary with a candidate pool of size N and a random interview order (random with respect to the skill/optimality of the hiree). In such a game where the job is either given at the end of the interview, or the candidate is turned away, turns out the optimal strategy is to reject the first 1/e or roughly 1/3 of candidates no matter the quality, and select the next best candidate. One can interpret this roughly the first 1/3 of candidates is sort of ‘sampling’ the candidate pool to find out the average skill level to determine hiring decisions.

Now the current Product Manager hiring game is different since applications are not turned away and all are simultaneously considered, however as same in the simple Secretary hiring game, as well as here, it is the case that the larger the candidate pools size N, the higher quality the final hiree.

Now at the same time, the trade off is fairness to applicants who need to make some life arrangements if their applicants are pending for many months.

Here’s Clement’s comment from another thread:

So in any case, the trade-offs seem to be, the longer applicants are accepted, the higher quality hiree that results, but waiting exceptionally long can be unfair to applicants who need to make life arrangements. However, is Clement the only one with experience hiring for a DAO? Does anyone else have this kind of experience?

From this thread, it looks like @paulaberman brings a strong candidacy, but the application is bundled. Has Sofía Cossar been posting and active in the thread?

From the other thread:

Hmmmm, then should HIP13 be further developed to resolve the hiring process in more detail ? Or explicitly allow the hiring of a ‘bundled’ application? Could candidates be ranked with quadratic voting including negative voting so any controversial applicants are less likely to win, such as this demo except negative voting enabled. As these are the first DAO hires, maybe its best like has been suggested to be very cautious since the hiree will steer the course of the DAO which would have especially large impact being the first DAO workers.


We have 4 candidates @iafhurtado @pmerugu @HBesso31, and @paulaberman. I believe all but @HBesso31 have been interviewed by @clesaege, and I talked to all of them.

I don’t see anything blocking a decision, except that @clesaege doesn’t seem satisfied with the candidates. Since I was voted down on HIP-13 and didn’t see a way to come to a decision, I decided to put my effort elsewhere.

My suggested next steps:

  • Set a (non-binding) deadline for applications using a poll.
  • When deadline comes, we vote on our preferred application(s) (I suggest approval voting which is already in Snapshot)
  • The above off course has no legal weight, so we proceed to the final step.
  • The signalled preferred candidate will with the backing of this thread create a new HIP for hiring them (and possibly a team and an expense budget).

We do not need a HIP for doing this since the final hiring/budget would be on the HIP-level anyway.


Btw I missed @VB_95 who put in an application 3 days ago.

I support your suggested next steps. We also need to add a deadline for volunteers to interview and provide feedback. It appears that one current bottleneck is step #5 (or #4) of HIP-2. The way that process is worded anyone can be a volunteer interviewer and then stall.

I propose slightly modifying your steps:

  • Set a (non-binding) deadline for applications using a poll.
  • Starting at the application deadline, volunteer interviewers will have 7 days to complete interviews and provide feedback. If they miss this deadline we will move forward without them.
  • On the interview deadline (7 days after the application deadline), we vote on our preferred application(s) (I suggest approval voting which is already in Snapshot)
  • The above off course has no legal weight, so we proceed to the final step.
  • The signalled preferred candidate will with the backing of this thread create a new HIP for hiring them (and possibly a team and an expense budget).

@Mads If we agree on this, where do we host the deadline poll. Is that on the forum?


Agreed with the steps proposed by @Justin and @Mads.

I have been participating in some of the interviews with candidates and read the recruiting exercises delivered by them. Following the rules of HIP 2:

  1. Volunteers indicate privately to the candidate the recommendation they would give to the DAO about the candidate (strong reject, weak reject, neutral, weak accept or strong accept). Candidates can then either allow those to become public or withdraw their application. They also have the possibility to readjust the requested compensation.

I’d like to endorse @paulaberman and @SofiaCossar. They have responded in time and form with the 2 exercises given to her by @clesaege which include:

  • Exercise A: No-code usecase: @paulaberman advanced with the integration of Proof of Humanity with the online debate tool pol.is
  • Exercise B: KPI where @paulaberman suggested tracking New registrations per month and % of disputed submission per month

Plus two reports on:

I have included for reference for the DAO the work delivered by @paulaberman which I think has been excellent.

Also, I should add that I have worked with Paula the past 4 years and I’m well aware of her capacity and skills to deliver quality work for the Proof of Humanity DAO. She has systematically connected with every relevant voice emerging from our community and even connected our project with relevant players in the crypto ecosystem. She’s by now one of the most well known researchers on Proof of Personhood protocols having co-authored a key paper on the topic and works alongside well known researchers like Primavera De Filippi (from Harvard and Ethereum Foundation).

More importantly: Paula isn’t afraid to speak her mind. Throughout the years I admit to having many disagreements with Paula but it was always for the good of the projects we embarked on and a demonstration she deeply cares about the organizations she works with. The fact she can speak her mind is a big plus and a necessary condition for teams that strive for quality. I think the community has also been able to see her in action on the Telegram channels and other groups, always with a civilized approach and welcoming of different views on topics that might sometimes lead to passionate debate.

Paula is passionate and cares about Proof of Humanity and UBI deeply. I like working with passionate people like her.

I highly recommend them both for the PM job.

1 Like

I agree to this procedure, I propose that both the polls are conducted on Snapshot, and mentioned in Telegram. Would you conduct the process? I don’t have much time ATM.

1 Like

Thank you Santi! To clarify, the exercises were done by both me and @SofiaCossar . We are applying together, we make all of our decisions together and that has not changed. @Mads please include Sofia in the list of candidates with me.

1 Like

List of candidates:
@paulaberman and @SofiaCossar as a duo
@HBesso31 (who is now applying individually, correct?)

I don’t think anyone has interviewed @VB_95 and @HBesso31 needs an interview from a more central figure than myself.

Just to add to the point - I was interviewed by @clesaege on Monday.