I would oppose this proposal for many reasons (while still thinking there could be some collaboration with Green):
Relation KIP-88
First about the relation to KIP-88.
Here hiring someone in particular doesn’t fit into “large cooperative orientation”.
The spirit of KIP-88 is to let the DAO give the big orientations, not for the DAO to micro-manage the cooperative. The relation between the DAO and coop should be that of a client to a service worker. The clients doesn’t tell the service worker whom to hire.
We should be careful not to overshoot and go from “the DAO has almost no input on the project” to “the DAO micromanages everything”.
Opportunity of hiring
Due to the current market condition, the cooperative is reducing costs. It would be weird to remove workers and then rehire someone at the same position at a higher price/productivity ratio.
Risks of politics
Positions, and particularly technical ones, should be attributed according to needs and skills. Not according to DAO politics. Otherwise, we run the risk of wasting funds in workers which are good at politics, but not good technically (technical skills, is hard for the DAO to evaluate).
Here Green already applied to the coop (despite no position being opened). If we were to add such position, it should be a competitive position, not granted without alternative by the DAO.
On the individual
Green has been a long time supporter of Kleros and has been a developer contractor before. He was an OK dev, not very good, not very bad, just OK. If he gets something he is motivated about he can be productive. But he can also be stuck and demotivated, such that he is improductive (cf stake curate).
Green is someone who really responds to economic incentives. I would not be having him on a fixed compensation as it would lead to poor incentives and poor productivity. For example, we had to warn him before due to performances while at the same time he was taking other engagements instead of focusing on his work for the coop.
If it were to be an engagement paid by results, I would be more inclined to consider it.
On the price
This seems to be way above his average productivity (albeit not his peak). I think on a well defined engagement with clear success metrics, he could have this type of productivity. But on a fixed compensation, productivity would be more in the 60-80k$ total comp range
On the responsabilities
Good idea.
At this point, it may be a bit premature (not by much, but maybe just by something like 3 months) as V2 contracts are still immature. Moreover it is not even clear if those will reach a point of maturity such that we can have high TVS (total value secured) apps on top, or if V2 will serve similarly to V0 as mainly a prototype for a final version we would have the merge with (V3).
The strategy about this should be informed by the results of further security procedures (for now it is immature to consider a launch with high TVS, but if after some modifications the next security procedures show no serious issues, it could be fine. Note that this point is only for high TVS apps. Low TVS apps will be able to use V2 no matter what similar to the Gnosis court.).
I would support Green being one assign an audit with result based compensation. No need of DAO vote for that.