RFC — Accountability Committee Proposal

[inkymaze]

@lotti

However, the delivery of funds has been in some cases delayed or implemented according to mechanisms that weren’t part of the agreement terms.

What’s the worst example here?

@Doo_StableLab

However, in terms of onchain voting, there should be at least accepted norm that delegates shouldn’t vote for themselves as candidates.

Agreed.

@tobyshorin

We further suggest that upon approval, the final committee appoint a Chair to coordinate its meetings, governance, and assign members to proposal review.

Good call. @larry is the archetype

@tobyshorin

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.

The risk of a committee overseeing a new process yet to execute is understated despite good sounding intentions.

@tobyshorin

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.

Agree with 6 month starting duration.

Other comments:

• @pennblockchain should be considered
• Gauntlet will not nominate ourselves at this time
• Controlling costs will be important without more specifications from the mandate above. Notably:

@lotti

• Onboarding the proposer team to the Uniswap ecosystem

@lotti

• Provide last-mile QA and technical guidance for deployments