[Phase-2]: HIP-13 Adopt a management onboarding procedure

HIP: 13
title: Adopt a management onboarding procedure
author: @Mads
status: Phase-2
created: 2021-05-21
amends: HIP-2

Simple Summary

This proposal makes rules for how to hire the management of the DAO, excepting this as a special case of the general hiring procedures.


The management onboarding procedure suggested here is designed to allow applicants to request the resources they need and describe their plan to finance these resources. They can describe who they need to be hired - filling open positions as well as creating new ones. They can suggest dedicated budgets for specific purposes. They also need to describe how these resources are paid for. The budget and financing plan can be as slim (hire me for PM, we will figure it out later) or as expansive as the proposer desires.

The procedure also sets a way to decide when we pass on to a decision. We use polls to decide how much time we need to decide/wait for more applications, when the date comes we create a poll to either pass to a decision or extend the application process.


This proposal is inspired by the applications that the DAO received to the product manager position. Two of the applicant, @paulaberman and @HBesso31, applied to the position with one (@paulaberman- Sofia Cossar) or several (@HBesso31 - Ryan Cwynar/Cami Arias/Anna Kaic) required team members.

This introduces a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem since the DAO is currently only authorized to hire employees individually (through the HIP-2 1) procedure but the applicants will only agree to be hired if they can have their team along. This proposal allows for the flexibility to accept such applications.

In addition, this proposal also creates a clear path towards a decision by regularly forcing a vote on whether we should move to a decision. This way we may keep the process open, but still signal to the applicants how close we are to being ready, giving a signal of how likely they are to get a decision.


Amending HIP-2: This process is an exception to HIP-2 because it allows hiring by the onboarding plan. This exception should be added to HIP-2.


  • A new thread is created for management onboarding or an existing one is designated for the purpose.
  • A decision/re-evaluation decision is made through a snapshot poll.
  • The re-evaluation poll will be “Are we ready to decide on a PM?”, answers “Yes” or “No - extend 1/2/4/8/16 weeks”.
  • If the answer is No we will use the median value of the poll for the number of weeks for the next re-evaluation date (“Yes” counts as 0).
  • If the answer is “Yes” we will close for further applications.
  • If an application comes in during voting, a full week (from the time of the application) must be available for discussion of the new candidate before moving to next phase.

An application must describe their Onboarding plan:

  • How to fill open positions (specific people or the process)
  • Alternatively, that which open positions should be closed.
  • A budget for operation for at least one year.
  • A financing plan for at least one year.

Proposer Selection

  • A 7-day vote is created with all applicants (their handle in Discourse) in random order. “Which is your preferred PM?” Answers (“Applicant 1”/“Applicant 2”/“Applicant 3”)
  • The applicant with the highest vote count will become the current “Proposer”.


  • The proposer will create a thread with the final onboarding plan which is allowed to be changed from the original application.
  • The Proposer must within one week create a snapshot poll with the title “[Binding] Onboard [Applicant Name]”.
  • The entire Onboarding plan must be pasted in the snapshot poll.
  • On rejection, the applicant with the next highest vote count becomes the new proposer and the application Onboarding phase is repeated.
  • If all candidates are rejected we reopen for the application phase.


This process is a compromise between setting a deadline, which will allow candidates to plan their lives and keeping our options open. The candidates know when a re-evaluation occurs, and if we do not close for applications, at least they will get an indication of how close we were to closing and a new date giving them more feedback to plan.

The poll created by @paulaberman on whether to allow teams came back positive so this process allows for such a proposal. If you don’t like a team proposal, you are free to vote against it and/or vote to extend the application period if only team applications are in.

I considered making the proposal repeal HIP-3, however, this is not needed. HIP-3 simply defines two open positions. If these open positions (not specifying full-/part-time) are incompatible with an applicant’s plan then the applicant must argue why these positions should be closed as part of the Onboarding plan.


Any member can take the actions to advance the process as long as the requirements are fulfilled.

Snapshot Poll

1 Like

I will oppose this proposal for the following reasons:

  • This proposal takes the hiring power away from the DAO. By hiring teams (which can include members not decided yet), the DAO could end up hiring people it would not have hired otherwise.
  • Having people hired as team is likely to create some form of tribalism and power struggle. This is what happened with Aragon and this ended up in one team taking over and having all the others fired.
  • Team hires would make workers loyal to their team leader, not to the DAO itself. This can give team leader considerate power and lead to conflict of interest.
  • Hiring is the hardest thing in a project. Only a small portion of applicants (~5%) are acceptable hires. It is quite unlikely for a team to be composed only of applicants in those 5%.
  • Due to recent crash, the DAO doesn’t have much non UBI assets. It may be OK to hire the 2 positions advertised but is definitely not enough to replace individual positions with teams.
  • In case of teams, firing unfit workers becomes even harder, other team members would probably leave if one of their team member is fired. This can make firing really hard and lead to spending DAO resources for unfit team members.
  • Team applications are generally a way to mean “I’m interested working for the DAO only if I can immediately get managing power”. Good manager can stand out and participate in other candidates reviews advising the DAO. Getting the power to hire people without consulting the DAO would be way above the amount of responsibilities that the DAO could give to a new hire.
  • The other potential meaning would be “I only want to work for the DAO if I work with my friends”. This shows poor motivation and high risk of quitting (including having whole teams quit at once leading to huge disruptions).
  • Giving deadlines for hires is likely to pressure the DAO to hire “OK candidates” at the deadline. This would likely lead to lower quality workers (sacrifice of quality for speed).

As someone that is close to the hiring process, I agree with the concerns raised by @clesaege.

Also @Mads I think you should consider that on the signaling poll, the members from Kleros and Democracy Earth who are actively working for the DAO and making this first hire, signaled against hiring teams.

I think it is better to simply allow teams to apply under the original proposal, because it would be faster and I think this process you have outlined @Mads would be extremely time consuming. Both me and Sofia are being interviewed today, so I take it as a sign that our proposal is considered valid enough.

With regards to hiring teams, I hear your points @clesaege but they come against the hard fact that the attributions (integrations and community) extend beyond what can be executed with quality by a single individual. A team is needed, that’s the reality. And there’s nothing worse for an A player than being forced to work with a B player. Sometimes people take more than a year just looking for a co-Founder, and as you mentioned we will be in a position that is analogous to being a co-Founder.

I could go in alone, and propose to hire someone else later but I don’t think this would be the best for the DAO, as similarly with this proposal by Mads, it would be too time consuming. We are simply offering the most straightforward route of applying as a duo who has known and worked with each other for years, and requesting less than half of a PM salary for each of us. This is what we sincerely believe to be the best for the DAO, and given our poll from last week I think it is a valid and legitimate path. Hope you can give it some consideration.


It is true that non-delegated votes on the signallng poll voted significantly in favour of hiring teams and that should be taken into consideration as well.

1 Like

My main motivation for this proposal was that nothing was happening - in the thread at least - and this process could give the community a chance to kick the core team into action:)
If you are starting to give the candidates interview then I am happy.

On reflection, there is no formal problem with team applications. Hiring would anyway require a proposal and a team hire would simply need to claim an exception from HIP-2 in the new proposal.

On the merits, I definitely prefer the two team proposals. I find them both very generous and the ones that most comprehensively address the needs of the DAO.

I will leave this proposal for now, since there is actually nothing that prevents me from just running this process if nothing else is happening.