[DRAFT] D_D Code of Conduct and moderation process
Authors:
Previous forum discussion on this topic.
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 have not only a CoC 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 weāre dealing with humans, but not having a process ensures weāre 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 peopleās 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, colour, 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 apologising 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 sexualised 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 othersā 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
- Misuse of authority (or access and power) of any kind. Including (but not limited to) attempts to harass, bully, intimidate, or āpunishā another member.
- The claiming of anotherās ideas as your own, to promote yourself.
- Abuse of this process (false or malicious claims as determined by Moderators)
Scope
This Code of Conduct applies within all community spaces and when an individual officially represents 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.
Reporting an issue
Instances of abuse, harassment, bullying, intimidation, or otherwise unacceptable behaviour may be reported to the Facilitators via this form. All complaints will be reviewed and investigated promptly and fairly.
All Facilitators 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 required.
Facilitator
Facilitators are members of the Stewards Council who are trusted to facilitate the Moderation Procedures and are identified to members as performing this role. There must always be 2 Facilitators at any time, chosen by the Stewards after each Stewardsā election.
The role of a Facilitator 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
Members of the Stewards Council will act as the Moderators to help evaluate conflicts to reach resolutions that uphold the communityās values and that reach towards a restorative approach rather than a punitive one as much as possible.
The Confidentiality clause in the Contributor Agreement, which all Stewards must sign when performing their role, includes protecting the privacy of all parties involved in disputes when conducting their duties as a moderator. They will also be expected to recuse themselves from mediating any issues in which they have a conflict of interest (involved in the report directly, indirectly as part of the same team, existing relationships with anyone involved etc.).
Moderation Procedures
Upon receiving a violation report to our CoC, a Facilitator will use the random selection process defined below to select 3 Moderators from the pool. Each Moderator will be added to a private discussion with the other chosen Moderators and the Facilitators, 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 Google Meet via emails, with videos turned off, where the report and any associated evidence will be shared, and a response headed. This meeting should last up to 30 mins.
After the meeting, the Moderators will report their decision to the Facilitators in writing in private, who will then communicate the decision to the accused party in writing.
Decisions can be appealed through the same Facilitator, giving members a second chance to explain 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 unacceptable behaviour (as defined above in Section āReporting an Issueā) are expected to comply immediately."
Suppose a member continues to engage in harassing behaviour. In that case, the Facilitators may take any action they deem appropriate, including expulsion from the server in pursuit of safety.
Moderation random selection
To ensure Moderators are selected randomly, the Facilitators will assign each moderator a number and then use this random number generator to choose the required number of Moderators.
Suppose a Moderator is unavailable or highlights a conflict they have. In that case, the process is repeated to find however many more Moderators are needed, with those already chosen/conflicted removed from the list.
If a decision is appealed and new Moderators are needed, the process is repeated without the existing Moderators included.
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 behaviours deemed unwelcome, harmful or unprofessional.
Consequence: A private, written warning from Facilitators, 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. This includes avoiding interactions in community spaces and 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 interaction or public communication with the community for a specified period. 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 public interaction within the community.
5. Removal from position(s) of authority and/or access
Community Impact: Demonstrating a pattern of behaviour that constitutes a misuse of authority and/or access to things such as permissions, accounts, spaces, etc., all of which ultimately violate the communityās standards. This is not limited to a series of actions but includes a single incident.
Consequence: An immediate removal from any roles of authority and/or access (e.g. Moderator in Discord, access to social media accounts etc.)
Drawbacks
- No such process is perfect; ultimately, humans make decisions based on how they perceive the situation and their own lived experiences.
- This approach places further responsibilities on the Stewards at least in the interim.
Vote
- For
- Against
- Abstain
Next Steps
- This proposal comes into affective after the 1st Election of Stewards as defined in the DAO Governance Structure Upgrade Proposal currently on Snapshot.
- Upon Election of the Stewards, 2 facilitators must be chosen in the first Stewards Council, and access to the email accounts associated with the reporting form must be transferred to those Stewards, who should then change the password on this account.
- A copy of this document must be included in the Rules channel in discord, Noting, and the DAO Operating System doc currently being definite here.
ā
Attribution
This Code of Conduct is adapted from the Contributor Covenant, version 2.1, available at Contributor Covenant:.
Community Impact Guidelines were inspired by Mozillaās 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.
Really nice piece of work. 
(never more than 7 days because it can be traumatic experience for a person if itās too long)
(never more than 2 weeks and also ensuring the victim is okay)
(30 days but giving notice/updates in 2 weeks and telling the victim/reminding them that we are taking actions)
Who would determine what is low/medium/high?
can you try to rephrase?