I will be voting yes to show confidence in Matt. I do think, however, poor precedents are being set for future DAO hirings:
If Clayboyn remains anonymous (which is his right although I personally consider it incorrect practice) there must be guarantees from SPL of their maintaining up to date records of personal details to enable legal action in the event of malfeasance. This isn’t a slight against Clayboyn who I think would work well for the DAO, it’s mandatory in financial sectors and should be applied to any employee.
The contract of employment should be available for all to view. I’m unsure who would draw up the contract (BlockchainFF? Matt?), but if the DAO is hiring someone, it seems necessary to have the contract displayed from the time the proposal is put forward to avoid ambiguity.
There should be a clear rubric from which the community can assess any DAO employee’s work. As the first potential employee, Clayboyn could perhaps suggest ideas on this front. It is essential to see work (excepting NDA negotiations) being undertaken and completed so the DAO can determine if a reasonable return is being had from the proffered salary.
As a final thought I also believe prospective employees of the DAO should face a supermajority (66.6%) vote to be hired, but only a majority (50%) vote to be removed. This seems logical from all standpoints. Withdrawals from the DAO should entail substantial friction, while cost-saving measures should encounter minimal resistance.
I’d like to see the proposal updated to address the above points.