D_D Code of Conduct and moderation process - Seeking Input

This is a very early draft of the updated Code of Conduct and moderation procedure for handling violations. Given the impact of this proposal, sharing to invite feedback before a final draft is put through DDIP.

See attribution for inspirations for this at the bottom of the post. There is also a temp check vote to see which of the two proposed moderation procedures folks think is best.

One very important question:

  • How do we select a representative group of people to be in the moderator pool?

[DRAFT] D_D Code of Conduct and moderation process

Authors: x x x x x

View the discussion from the last stage of the proposal here. (provide a link)

Summary

This proposal implements a new Code of Conduct (CoC) for the DAO and a clear process for how violations of this CoC are handled which all members will be bound to on the passing of this proposal.

Motivation

For Developer DAO to live by its values and provide a safe environment for all members it is critically important we not only have a C oC but also a clear way for folks to report violations and a process for action to be taken so that everyone can understand what they are adhering to.

Such processes are never perfect as we’re dealing with humans but not having a process ensures we’re unable to adhere to our values.

Our values are defined as:

  • Transparency (open source everything, conversations in public, document and share journey)
  • Diversity and Inclusion (seek to foster as diverse a membership as possible and support everyone to contribute)
  • Responsibility (as a self-governed community we rely on members to be personally responsible for their actions and commitments to the community)
  • Kindness and empathy (we know that we are living in a complex, stressful, and diverse world and go out of our way to make people’s lives and days better through our interactions)

Scope of Work

Our pledge as members of the Developer DAO

We as members, contributors, and leaders pledge to make participation in our community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, level of experience, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.

We pledge to act and interact in ways that contribute to an open, welcoming, diverse, inclusive, and healthy community.

Our Standards

Examples of behaviour that contributes to a positive environment for our community include:

  • Demonstrating empathy and kindness toward other people
  • Being respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences
  • Giving and gracefully accepting constructive feedback
  • Accepting responsibility and apologizing to those affected by our mistakes, and learning from the experience
  • Focusing on what is best not just for us as individuals, but for the overall community

Examples of unacceptable behaviour include:

  • The use of sexualized language or imagery, and sexual attention or advances of any kind
  • Trolling, insulting or derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
  • Public or private harassment
  • Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or email address, without their explicit permission
  • Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting

Scope

This Code of Conduct applies within all community spaces and also applies when an individual is officially representing the community in public spaces. Examples of representing our community include using an official e-mail address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event.

Adapted from CONTRIBUTOR COVENANT CODE OF CONDUCT

Reporting an issue

Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise, unacceptable behaviour may be reported to the Mediators at [INSERT CONTACT METHOD]. All complaints will be reviewed and investigated promptly and fairly.

All Mediators and those on the Moderation Committee are obligated to respect the privacy and security of the reporter of any incident.

You may be contacted by an anonymous Moderator account in a private channel visible only to you and the moderator(s) to ask for additional information if it is required.

Mediators

Mediators are members of the DAO who are trusted to facilitate the Moderation Procedures and are identified to members as performing this role.

The role of a Mediator is to facilitate the resolution, not decide it. They will act as a neutral liaison between the person, or people, who reported the behaviour and the anonymous committee of Moderators responsible for evaluating reported violations.

Moderators

The Moderators are an anonymous committee made up of community members that have volunteered and been approved to help evaluate conflicts, with an eye towards reaching resolutions that uphold the community’s values and that reach towards a restorative approach rather than a punitive one as much as possible.

Moderators are a pool of applications that have been pre-screened by INSERT_SOMEONE_OR_SOME_GROUP in an INSERT_BLIND_REVIEW_PROCESS. The approved applicants will be compensated in $CODE and rotated out on a bi-seasonal basis; they will be under a confidentiality agreement to protect the privacy of parties involved in disputes, and will also be expected to recuse themselves from mediating any issues in which they have a conflict of interest.

Moderation Procedures V1

Upon receiving a report of a violation to our CoC, a Mediator will use INSERT_RANDOM_PROCESS to select 3 Moderators from the pool. Each moderator will be added to a private discussion with the other chosen Moderators and the Mediator where full information about the reports and those involved will be shared.

The Moderators will then invite the accused party to a private discussion on INSERT_PLATFROM videos turned off where the report and any associated evidence will be shared and a response headed. This meeting should last no longer than 30 mins.

After the meeting, Moderators will deliberate and report their decision back to the Mediator in writing in private who will then community the decision to the accused party in writing.

Decisions can be appealed through the same Mediator, providing members with a second chance at explaining a situation to the second set of approved moderators who were not involved in the initial decision. There is only one appeal allowed per case.

Members asked to stop any harassing behaviour are expected to comply immediately.

If a member continues to engage in harassing behaviour, the admins may take any action they deem appropriate, up to and including expulsion from the server in pursuit of safety for all.

Moderation Procedures V2

Upon receiving a report of a violation to our CoC, a Mediator organises a conversation with the member who reported the violation first to take their statement, creating a report based on this statement which the member must agree is accurate.

This report is then shared with the accused and a conversation is organised to take their statement in response which similarly is converted into a report that they agree is accurate.

Whilst these reports would be anonymous, enough context would need to be shared to help the moderators understand the situation better. This may include demographic data, situational/environmental context (i.e. group call, 1-to-1, f-2-f), the context of conversion, past experiences, feelings and any consequences. Any information shared must be okayed by each party, the primary goal here is to protect folks from harm.

Once the reports are OK’d, they’re shared with a randomly selected group of Moderators to be reviewed. Once reviewed and before deliberating the Moderators vote on the outcome and then a conversation is facilitated by the Mediator to deliberate on the decision for no longer than 60 mins, after which a final vote is taken and the decision is communicated to all parties and any action taken immediately by the Mediator.

TEMP CHECK VOTE - Which Moderation Procedure do you feel is best?

Appreciate thoughts which ever way you vote.

  • Procedure 1
  • Procedure 2
  • Neither - PLEASE EXPLAIN

0 voters

Moderation random selection

To ensure moderators are selected at random, the Mediator will assign each moderator a number and then use a random number generator such as this to choose the required number of moderators.

If a moderator is unavailable or highlights a conflict they have, the process is repeated to find how ever many more moderators that are needed with those already chosen/conflicted removed from the list.

If the a decision is appealed and new moderators are needed, the process is repeated without the existing moderators included.

Decisions can be appealed through the same Mediator, providing members with a second chance for the reports to be reviewed by a second set of approved moderators who were not involved in the initial decision. There is only one appeal allowed per case.

Members asked to stop any harassing behaviour are expected to comply immediately.

If a member continues to engage in harassing behaviour, the admins may take any action they deem appropriate, up to and including expulsion from the server in pursuit of safety for all.

Enforcement guidelines

Moderators will follow these community impact guidelines in determining the consequences for any action they deem in violation of this Code of Conduct:

1. Correction

Community Impact: Use of inappropriate language or other behaviour deemed unprofessional or unwelcome in the community.

Consequence: A private, written warning from community leaders, providing clarity around the nature of the violation and an explanation of why the behaviour was inappropriate. A public apology may be requested.

2. Warning

Community Impact: A violation through a single incident or series of actions.

Consequence: A warning with consequences for continued behaviour. No interaction with the people involved, including unsolicited interaction with those enforcing the Code of Conduct, for a specified period of time. This includes avoiding interactions in community spaces as well as external channels like social media. Violating these terms may lead to a temporary or permanent ban.

3. Temporary Ban

Community Impact: A serious violation of community standards, including sustained inappropriate behaviour.

Consequence: A temporary ban from any sort of interaction or public communication with the community for a specified period of time. No public or private interaction with the people involved, including unsolicited interaction with those enforcing the Code of Conduct, is allowed during this period. Violating these terms may lead to a permanent ban.

4. Permanent Ban

Community Impact: Demonstrating a pattern of violation of community standards, including sustained inappropriate behaviour, harassment of an individual, or aggression toward or disparagement of classes of individuals.

Consequence: A permanent ban from any sort of public interaction within the community.

Attribution

This Code of Conduct is adapted from the Contributor Covenant, version 2.1, available at Contributor Covenant:.

Community Impact Guidelines were inspired by Mozilla’s code of conduct enforcement ladder.

For answers to common questions about this code of conduct, see the FAQ at Contributor Covenant: Frequently Asked Questions about Contributor Covenant. Translations are available at Contributor Covenant: Contributor Covenant Translations.

Drawbacks

No such process is perfect and, ultimately, humans are making decisions in the end based on how theory perceives the situation and their own lived experiences.

Vote

THIS DOESN’T APPLY FOR THE DAFT BUT SHARING FOR TRANSPARENCY

Given the impact of this proposal on the community, this vote will require a Supermajority of at least 66% support for it to pass and be adopted by the DAO.

  • Yes
  • No
  • Abstain
2 Likes

Brilliant initiative and thanks a lot for getting it going @kempsterrrr!

First question: how many mediators do we expect to have in a season?

I’m just addressing the Moderation Procedures with this post, otherwise it’s too much to take in in one sitting.

I think Moderation Procedure v1 is a good and robust process that just needs a little bit of v2.

  • One person to speak to the complainant - it’s not always easy to report a bad thing, so one mediator has confidentiality and therefore trust baked in

  • it’s important for mediator to convey that that trust doesn’t equal a ‘result’.

  • One person (the same mediator?) to speak to the accused to reply to ‘the charge’, and I would incorporate the following from Moderation Procedures v2 at this point:

“Whilst these reports would be anonymous, enough context would need to be shared to help the moderators understand the situation better. This may include demographic data, situational/environmental context (i.e. group call, 1-to-1, f-2-f), the context of conversation, past experiences, feelings and any consequences. Any information shared must be okayed by each party, the primary goal here is to protect folks from harm.”

  • A panel of three moderators is a good number of listeners for accused to try and appeal to, and enough wisdom in those three to listen and hopefully come to a fair outcome.

  • The same goes if it comes to an appeal second round - I think it’s the question whether new moderators would be briefed by predecessors from the first round to ensure impartiality. There would always be the outcome of the initial interview with both the accused and accuser, so a lot of information would already be there.

  • I strongly suggest keeping the admins as administrators and not involved in making any decisions at all - it defeats the integrity of the process, I would say.

Just for context: on Moderation Procedures V2 the first part is quite flawed I believe:
showing a signed statement from the complainant to the accused is a recipe for disaster. The accused can fabricate a hell of a lot of lies or half truths based on that. And often the type of person who is a predator, manipulator, abuser will likely be pretty good at this.

1 Like

thanks for the TLDR. to clarify this as I don’t think is quite as I intended:

V1

  • Mediator takes original report (just form submission) of the complaint selects 3 random moderators and hands it off to them
  • Moderators speak to each part and make their judgement
  • Mediator communicates the judgement back to each party

very passive role, moderators do most of the work

V2

  • Mediator take original report (form submission) and they themselves take a full statement from each part on a video call which they have to agree and sign up to as accurate
  • Mediator shares these statements (anon, but with context) with moderators who make a decision based on the facts presented, not a conversation with the folks (more like a jury)
  • Mediator communicates moderators decision back to each party

Mediator does most of the work, more like a typical legal process, Moderators are handed evidence like a jury, they don’t get the evidence themselves

I think this might update some of your feedback in the next reply @Piablo

i.e.

the mediator speaks with each party directly to clarify their version of events, person who reported first then the accused. it is the mediator’s job to interview, question, clarify, examine etc. what each is saying and produce the reports which each party must agree is accurate. they don’t write to them. that would be very flawed I agree.

1 Like

After reading through it all, I feel that the Procedure 1 might be a better approach.

For procedure 1:

how can we will make sure that the procedure will be fair for the person who made the report?

what if the appeal makes the accused to take advantage and get out of the situation?

For Procedure 2:

  • asking the person who makes the report to make video call and sign agreement seems like quite a lot (as it discourages the willingness to even make report and people would rather leave the community than going through a complicated process to report something unfair happened to them)

  • also the accused party can always have the privilege of being loud and trying to get out of situation (which can cause a lot of distress to the person who reported the issue)

3 Likes

Thanks meowy for the diagram super helpful :raised_hands:

3 Likes

I thought this was great

There could be the potentiality to abuse the CoC itself.

Meaning someone makes multiple false accusations.

There could be consequences for that, for that is a form of harassment, especially if it’s on the same person.

We see abuse of systems like this in different areas of the world, so I thought it would be worth bringing up.

I just deleted my tl’dr as it isn’t accurate. Saving space…and confusion! :smiley:

1 Like

MEOEY YOU ABSOLUTE LEGEND ( @with-heart would love this ) - thanks so much for the diagrams :heart:

how can we will make sure that the procedure will be fair for the person who made the report?

I think we have to trust our fellow humans (moderators) to make the right calls. If either party feels they haven’t, they can appeal it. Not sure I can think of anything else that wouldn’t make it unfairly balanced for the person who reported it and we need to be careful as this can be abused as well as per @allWiseee point below:

Good point mate. Wonder if the answer is it’s up to the moderators.

i.e. if they think something is in breach of CoC, they have the power to take action against either party? Main concern here would be scaring folks of reporting things. tough balance

what do you think?

not sure I understand mate, could you provide an example please? :pray:

Good points mate. Just playing the other side of this for a second… How different are these two approaches:

Approach 1 - The person who reported needs to have a conversation with 3 moderators who will make a decision

Approach 2 - The person makes statement to one person who shares it anon with 3 moderators

Is the complexity your referring to signing the statement? I’m just wondering as part of the reason for suggesting this as an alternative was so the person who reported didn’t have to speak to 3 people (instead of one, which might be more stressful for some) and just trust their judgement (without getting a chance to confirm they’ve understood your POV by signing the statement)

so the person who is reporting a violation should never be asked to speak with the person their report is about, unless THEY choose to do that to accept an apology/clear the air. the focus here is safety for both parties first. so they wouldn’t have a chance to act like this to someone who has reported them.

so in both cases, each person is only speaking with either the mediator or the moderators, never each other. does that address the question or did I miss something mate?

if someone is found to be in breach of the CoC, maybe the report could request they’re not allowed to engage with them directly in the community?

1 Like

Thank you @kempsterrrr for outlining this and thank you also @Piablo @meowy @allWiseee for sharing your feedback.

Just flagging this as a risk given the challenges faced with getting multi-sig signers to sign transactions this month: Whether procedure 1 or procedure 2 is selected, engagement is needed to moderate/mediate the infraction in a timely way.

1 Like

full agree. any ideas for helping with this?

Very happy about ^that.

1 Like

Update here. Planning to move forward with Moderation Procedure 1 and will work on a finalised draft of this proposal to share back with everyone.

Thanks for your feedback @meowy @chuck25 @allWiseee @Piablo @p_b

I have locked the vote but feel free to share any more thoughts as they’re really helping :slight_smile:

I truly appreciate all the work you have been doing.:purple_heart:

He’s the reason why I started doing diagrams for everything.
This is one of the many things I have learnt from him.:sparkles: