Community Oversight Committee Proposal [Part 1]

This is the 1st of 3 proposals that I am putting out to help put a base layer process in place to allow the Sushi team to move forward in terms of governance, budget transparency, hiring and more. The implemented process should evolve over time according to the requirements of the DAO.

This is not a competing proposal with pocketsquare’s Sushi 2.1 - Sushi 2.1 - Introduction of a Community Oversight Committee

The proposal is solely written to open up more avenues for discussion so the community can figure out what the best model might be.

I would like to propose the formation of a ‘Community Oversight Committee’ to work hand in hand with the ‘Sushi Compensation Committee’. The role of the ‘COC’ is to provide checks and balances, and ensure transparency with regards to the use of Sushi resources. Detailed responsibility of the ‘COC’ shall be decided in a separate proposal.

Community Oversight Committee

The ‘COC’ will be a stand alone entity that represents the voice of the larger community. The ‘COC’ will be given a yearly grant by Sushi, with the community deciding on the amount and also the individual salaries of its contributors. Any community member can apply to be on the committee via a forum proposal. All members have to be voted in through governance via snapshot.

The ‘COC’ is to work alongside the ‘Sushi Compensation Committee’ to help oversee the treasury, budgets, compensation distribution, conflict resolution, performance reviews, address concerns from the community and strategic direction of Sushi.

Both committees should initially comprise of 4 members. All individual members shall hold an equal weighted multisig vote as well as the responsibility to post a snapshot. A proposal will only make it to snapshot if both committees come to an agreement (5:3 in favor). If both committees can’t come to an agreement on a certain topic after a lengthy discussion (4:4), a ‘temperature check’ proposal shall be posted on snapshot for public voting. The result of that vote will be counted as the tie breaker (5:4).

The number of members of each committee can be expanded in the future if needed. All ‘COC’ members’ terms will last for 6 months (January & June), after which they will have to put out a new proposal seeking the community’s approval to either retain their positions or swap members.

On-Boarding SOP - Community Oversight Committee

What happens if someone resigns/gets booted or all 8 seats are not filled ?
While the search for an ideal candidate is in progress, both committees are allowed to nominate temporary stand-ins to fill the blank positions without the use of governance voting.

Compensation committee → Ideally one of the Sushi team leads from the various departments

Community Oversight committee → Ideally active community members or large stakeholders (e.g Cumberland, ARCA, 9x9x9)

Implement a process to form a Community Oversight Committee

  • Yes
  • No

0 voters


I like this. Both ideas are quite similiar. Only diff is number of seats and term lengths but the general spirit is aligned.

One thing id say is i think 6 month term is too short. In the beginning stages of this reorg its probably going to take 6 months just to hash out a lot of details/personnel searches/etc. thats why i went with 2 years but if people want shorter perhaps we meet in the middle at 1 year to start and see how it goes

If there are 4 & 4 and all members have multisig ability, how many signatures are required to process a txn? IE does the comp committee have the ability to go rogue and if so, what recourse does the COC have? I do feel strongly that there needs to be an accountability mechanism to incentivize people so that if there are bad actors or people who arent doing their jobs they can be removed by “the community”

“The ‘COC’ will be given a yearly grant by Sushi, with the community deciding on the amount and also the individual salaries of its contributors.”

The ‘COC’ are paid to keep an eye on the core team. If there are bad actors within the core/compensation team, the ‘COC’ can put out a proposal to remove the bad actors because they have multisig abilities as well.

Refer to - Governance Process Proposal [Part 2]

The core/compensation team themselves shall then internally elect unbiased team leads to replace those bad actors to cast the votes.

To come to an agreement the vote has to always be 5:3 in favor (meaning 1 person from the opposite committee has to agree). If both committees still can’t come to an agreement (4:4 vote). Then we move to a ‘temperature check’ snapshot for public voting. The result of that vote will be counted as the tie breaker 5:4, thus determining if the contributor keeps his position or gets terminated.

I like this as well - and am appreciative of the of the visuals.

It seems to aid with greater understanding of the proposal and organizational structure.

I would like volunteer as one of the COC members and further invest time / expertise in Sushi.

As part of a $1,000,000 SUSHI recipient and active forum participant - this feels like a good fit.

Worth discussing? Happy to share credentials.

1 Like

This proposal has some solid points but also some weak points.

Improving the multi-sig signature efficiency without compromising its security is a must. But I miss the fine detail, such as the operation cost of operating the multi-sig in such a way and how to make it sustainable. Further, I would prefer to see also plans on how to decrease the operation cost because If we don’t start thinking about that in this phase, will it become an hindsight moment.

Furthermore, I think that the tasks for the “COC” vary a lot, and combined with the max “sitting” period of 6 months, it will be difficult to find the right people. I am curious that the people you named are already asked if they are interested in such a function.

Also, I am curious about how the people of the COC will be compensated in what range and on what it is based.

1 Like