MIP0c13-SP1: Subproposal for Core Personnel Offboarding

Maker Improvement Proposals Archive
#1

MIP0c13-SP1: Subproposal for Core Personnel Offboarding

Preamble

MIP0c13-SP#: 1
Author(s): LongForWisdom
Contributors: n/a
Status: RFC
Date Proposed: 03/08/20
Date Removed: <yyyy-mm-dd>
---
Core Personnel Role: Governance Facilitator
Core Personnel to be removed: Richard Brown

Removal Application and Supporting Evidence

Motivation

As is now well-known, Richard Brown has recently chosen to leave the Maker Foundation. As far as I can tell, this departure was entirely on good terms. In addition, he has expressed a desire to step down from the Governance Facilitator Role effective immediately.

This subproposal is largely a formality to confirm that decision and officially remove the authority and permissions Rich continues to hold under the MIPs process as a Governance Facilitator.

This subproposal should in no way be seen as a condemnation of, or a reaction to Rich’s performance as Governance Facilitator.

Relevant Information

Meeting Summary in which Rich annouced his intention to step away from his role at the Foundation.
Forum thread thanking Rich for his work.

4 Likes
Maker Relay Ep 7
Weekly Polls 2020/08/10
Maker Relay Ep 09
[Agenda/Discussion] Scientific Governance and Risk #104 - Thursday, August 6 4:00 PM UTC
#2

PR Here: https://github.com/makerdao/mips/pull/68

#3

Can we not approve Rich’s resignation? Where else are we going to get our daily fill of sardonic commentary?

7 Likes
#4

Yes, technically MKR Holders can choose to not-approve it. I’m fairly sure you’re joking, but I’ll use it as an excuse to illustrate why this would be a bad idea.

In practice not approving offboarding proposals when someone wants to be offboarded would be a mistake and has the potential to lead towards ill-will on behalf of the person in question.

Realistically, if someone has decided they don’t want to do a job, MKR Holders voting isn’t going to force them to keep doing it.

For what I hope are obvious reasons, leaving unwilling personnel in positions of power is a mistake.

I’ll try to provide sardonic commentary as my schedule allows.

10 Likes
Weekly MIPs Update #13
Weekly MIPs Update #12
Weekly MIPs Update #11
#5

Following up here:
As far as I can tell this was not approved? Neither this post nor Git.Hub reference a ratified date, and the executive package that contains it on Aug. 24th never passed. Was there another action I’m missing that formalized this departure, or was it put through as a good faith governance action?

FYI: Working on the MIP Tracking Spreadsheet and there are a few situations like this that are unclear and I will probably be making posts like this on items I am pretty sure were accepted as passed but can’t find evidence for so sorry to be spamming the recent posts with these inquiries.

#6

I don’t think is up to maker hodlers to approve if someone doesn’t want/can’t work for maker anymore (I mean, they can but it doesn’t make any difference). Perhaps you are looking for onboarding personnel?

#7

I would agree with the theory behind that, but as per our MIPS there is a formal process for removing someone from governance. This made it past the on-chain poll step but then the executive package didn’t pass. Obviously we’re not about to try to hunt Rich down and tell him he’s still working for governance, but it does bring up a potential issue with our governance structure

2 Likes