We see this proposal as a way to tackle two distinct challenges: developers’ engagement in governance and technical reviews.
As @jengajojo highlighted, increasing the technical awareness of the larger delegate cohort is a particularly important and valuable goal — we agree this should be tackled.
That said, we have some reservations about the proposed TAB’s current scope and structure. As @AbdullahUmar noted, only 2 out of 29 proposals since the start of 2024 would have benefited from a technical review. With such a limited current workload, there’s a risk that a formal, multi-member board might introduce more overhead than value at this stage.
Instead, we’d like to propose a more intermediate approach that leverages/coordinates with existing efforts funded by the Uniswap Foundation. Specifically, @blockful was recently awarded a grant focused on Governance Security Review. While their current scope doesn’t include technical reviews of governance proposals, this could be extended to do so without requiring the creation of a new structure.
We believe the DAO should extend @blockful’s current mandate from the UF, with a matching mandate focusing on the technical review of governance proposals.
We believe @blockful is a strong fit for two main reasons:
- They are already actively engaged with Uniswap’s governance security, with a scope that closely aligns with what’s envisioned for the TAB;
- They successfully provide this kind of technical review support for ENS governance.
This would allow us to address the technical assurance gap in a lean, efficient, and immediate way — while leaving room to reassess the need for a more formal advisory body down the line if the proposal volume or complexity increases.
As for developers’ engagement in governance, we believe that it is a separate challenge that should be addressed independently.