RFC — Accountability Committee Proposal

Requests for Comment
11

Thanks everyone for the great discussion so far. Laura and Aaron from OI contributed to this response post. Here are our thoughts for how to move forward!

  • In response to @pennblockchain:

    • We support Uniswap DAO contributors nominating themselves for a position on the committee—however we plan to cap the committee at 5 members, at least for the duration of the trial period. The goal of the cap is to keep the costs in check, scale manageable, and committee members accountable.
      - We’ll accept further nominations for the next 7 days, and we support Penn Blockchain’s proposed mechanism for voting on the nominees.
    • We further suggest that upon approval, the final committee appoint a Chair to coordinate its meetings, governance, and assign members to proposal review.

  • In response to @DAOstrat.C:

    • There is plenty of scope for the committee to provide value to Uniswap community after the expiration of the BSL.
    • Cross-chain governance will continue to be an issue, hardly solved after April 1 and the committee will be in a position to provide expert guidance and recommendations in the process, while gathering community feedback, guaranteeing compliance to the Cross-chain Assessment Bridge Process and overseeing its implementation.
    • Partnerships (with integrators, educational initiatives, advocacy groups, other institutions) will play a crucial role as Uniswap keeps growing and the Accountability Committee will be in a position to bring accountability to the evaluation and execution of such partnerships.
    • Lastly, we think it’s likely that there will be a BSL for future versions of Uniswap core protocol.

  • in response to @Kydo:

    • The duration of the committee has been scoped to 6 months since Uniswap governance activity is quite variable, in view of the governance minimized design principles of the protocol. So we think 3 months may be too short of a timespan to meaningfully assess the performance of the committee and to have a new election process.
    • 3 months may also be too short for committee members to begin developing practices and processes that may meaningfully carry forward into future iterations of the commitee therefore we caution against too short of a timespan.
    • We agree that the committee members should change periodically, and there should be a process for delegates to nominate themselves or others at different rounds. We recommend that (options: )
    • committee members are elected every 6 months, and cannot serve for more than 2 consecutive rounds.
    • retiring committee members are responsible for nominating and educating their successors.

Before moving to an on-chain vote we’ll write up these suggested committee “bylaws.” Per above discussion, open to self-nominations for participation in the committee.

1 Like