[DRAFT] D_D Code of Conduct and moderation process

[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 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, 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 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
  • Misuse of authority (or access and power) of any kind. Including (but not limited to) attempts to harass, bully, intimidate, or ‘punish’ another member.
  • The claiming of another’s 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 Stewards’ 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 community’s 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 ‘Reporting an Issue’) 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 community’s 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.

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.

4 Likes

Good work. Fully endorse it.

Might be useful to state what a ban means. I suggest being specific “Removal from all Discord Servers (main and any active sub-DAO), Forum, and any application officially on use by the DAO (Notion, Dework, etc); and blocked in social media by the main DAO accounts.”

1 Like

I’m upset this has been prompted.

Add a clause about abuse of the process as a form of harassment.

1 Like

Yeah, that could be a good shout. Guess the only challenge is someone has to facilitate that, i.e. remove them from everything and then re-add them later, so it’s a bit more work for someone. Thoughts on who that should be?

The alternative world would be if they are caught doing it; that’s another immediate offence to be reviewed by Mediators. It might be less lift, the same impact. I dunno

Not sure I follow, mate; sorry. What do you mean by this ?

Good shout. Do you suggest we give the moderators the power to decide if a report i an abuse of the process and act accordingly based on the guidelines?

Yeah let’s give power to decide to mods and make 2 others confirm any action taken for abuse of process

One ask I have for each of these new changes that gets implemented is that there is a grace period and time dedicated to education on these new changes.

All for better community guidelines, but don’t want information to get siloed and people get penalized for something they neglected to read.

I think in this proposal should also be the role out schedule, the community education timeline (announcements, town halls, community calls, tweets, emails, etc), and the deadline for it coming into full affect. I believe this would help avoid creating friction in the community.

5 Likes

What I am reading seems right. I don’t see any jarring errors.

1 Like

:paw_prints: Really nice piece of work. @kempsterrrr and everyone who contributed and inspired all the ideation and time that went into providing this needed guardrail for the safe functioning of our community. A great insurance policy for all of us. I’m super happy to see it finding its feet. :footprints:

One more ‘act’ of unacceptable behaviour we should add here that inevitably leads to mistrust and therefore deteriorating relationships/projects:

EDIT @kempsterrrr Part 1 finish edit The claiming of another’s ideas as your own, in order to promote yourself. It’s bad enough when it happens among colleagues, but if others’ hard work is claimed as your own to a different audience, especially in public spaces, it’s quite simple what it is. Simply put. it’s plagiarism.

EDIT @kempsterrrr Part 2 finish edit And when events are falsified to compound a claim such as the above, it should be considered as an additional conscious act.

As we all know, we’re working across many contexts and channels of communication. It’s only right that we foster a collegial atmosphere and give credit for contributions and ideas, where credit is due.

Often where it begins:
is some one person compiling the creative ideas of others. It can be as innocent as scribing/relaying the ideas from a meeting, or private (textual) conversation, but then taking credit as the actual composer of those ideas. That often leads to a ‘title’ which leads to entitlement. The compiler climbs a ladder (gets included in the rise), often the original ideators are left to hold that ladder (get excluded). Frustration and then burnout can set in.

Let’s create with friends, and celebrate together.

p.s. I applaud the name changes to stewards and operators in this community. It erodes the culture of patriarchy and superiority. I believe we’re moving in a good direction. Once again, thank you D_D.

1 Like

Those are very good points. I’ll drop some ideas here. Let me know what you think:

  1. Twitter thread explain core concepts alongside snapshot post (+ shared in newsletter/announced on discord)
  2. Added to @Erik_Knobl DAO Operating system on passing.
  3. Slot on Feb 24th at Town Hall for an overview/questions

Be interested to know more regarding your grace period thoughts - what would you like to see? X Days after snapshot passes for above things to be done?

Sure, would be happy to do this.

By this, do you just mean abuse of this process i.e. reporting things that are untrue?

@ntindle shared similar feedback on this.

@stewards, this proposal needs more engagement before we can consider elevating it for a vote.

Some questions were raised in the comments already which be worth reading. Assuming folks are happy, it would be nice to have this in place when the Stewards are elected. That means elevating the proposal on Wednesday February 22 inline with the Stewards Snapsot vote

Proposed changes, add the following points for CoC violations:

  • Passing off someone else’s work as your own
  • Abusing this process

It’s nice to see coc proposal on the process.
From our ddw team we will encourage member to always learn about coc violations and it’s process.

I have 2 concerns,

  • how can we convince folks that it’s worth reporting these violations? Because some folks might just leave rather than creating ruckus and find a community that’s suited for their need.
  • also how effective it would be even long term? because even if we report it and the DAO takes action but I wonder if the person who reported will still be safe from the abuser?

Overall, I hope we dont have to use it too often and we can nurture a safe and diverse community.

1 Like

:heart:

Very valid concern; I have this too. Think it boils down to education and clear documentation. As a min, I’d personally like to see:

  1. This given a very clear place on Github, Notion and D_D Operating System
  2. Added to onboarding cc @allWiseee @myz1237.eth

Do you have any thoughts on what else could be done?

Tough one. The DAO can only take action in the DAO using the framework above. Someone can report something happening outside of the DAO however, if that is say happening in someone’s DM, whilst the DAO can take action to remove them from the server etc. it can’t take action beyond what it can control like that.

Do you have anything specific in mind @meowy ?

Overall, I hope we dont have to use it too often and we can nurture a safe and diverse community.

me too

I’m thinking something like 30 days or even 60 days after something has passed when it comes to enforceable actions. During those days it would be heavy communication on the changes. It needs to become borderline annoying so that people know that new rules would be coming into effect.

1 Like

30 to 60 days feels far too long, at least for all changes. Definitely support something along these lines. What are your thoughts on:

  • Proposals don’t go into effect until Next Steps for the proposal have been finalised, and it is here we determine what the requirements are for an effective role out. Here we could add requirements for messaging etc., rather than create an arbitrarily long grace period for everything when somethings are very valuable to get live with reason asap, such as this.
  • Maybe a small, 7 day window for things to go into effect could be nice and then the Next Steps have to be completed.

Insterested to hear thoughts from the other @stewards on this topic as well.

The way I think about it is like software deprecation notices and how many users a product has. If there was 100 users, then a shorter time frame could be done to really give people notice of changes (heck you could make 100 individual calls). As the number of users increase, then I think the length of time needs to increase to meet the time needed for things to be fully aware, especially for things as severe as expulsion.

To use one of your examples for unacceptable behaviour in a scenario:

  • Code of conduct is approved and messaging starts
  • I’m away on holidays for 2 weeks and I don’t see any messages
  • I come back and I post a photo about Vitalik’s Bulge and start commenting about it as joke
  • Another day goes by and I post another photo and joke about it
  • A week goes by and another member finds what I posted unacceptable and reports all the posts I made
  • It looks like I recklessly ignored the new code and posted about things multiple times which could lead to expulsion

That timeframe is about 3-4 weeks. My thinking is that 7 days might still be too short, but would love to know what you think and if I’m reaching for an edge case.

1 Like

In that case we can probably try to categorize coc violation with specific unacceptable behaviors with the consent of the victim.

  • high :fire: (never more than 7 days because it can be traumatic experience for a person if it’s too long)
  • medium :zap: (never more than 2 weeks and also ensuring the victim is okay)
  • low :ocean:(30 days but giving notice/updates in 2 weeks and telling the victim/reminding them that we are taking actions)

Just throwing some ideas.

No, i wasn’t referring to the COC process itself (although of course that is 100% valid), I meant in reference to part 1 of situation I sketched.
Part 1. - I’m claiming this i.e. I created this - it’s now apparently my creation, my claim and therefore in my possession
Part 2 - This and this and this happened for me to get this creation, not forgetting the omission of events, or others, is also a conscious decision i.e. being economical with the truth
Sorry for the delay @kempsterrrr …busy days…

I think 1. 2. and 3. are solid ideas - is it an idea to add the link to this proposal in the announcement for the town hall…maybe with an open question as a thought/title “How safe do you feel in the DAO? We will have an overview/questions slot in the Town Hall for that. Read up on the proposal and make your town hall contributions to that slot meaningful. For yourself, others and the DAO” - I’m sure a great mind like your own could condense such a message into a short sentence. Brevity isn’t one of my strong points/
As for grace periods, i’m sorry I’m not too sure.

1 Like

I fully understand your points here. However, to share another scenario from the otherside of this.

Let’s say we wait 30 days for this to pass and in that window, someone is mistreated badly in the DAO, and they have no way of reporting it or having anything done about it. Is that better than the process not being fully understood?

Trying to prioritise safety here. I’m aware of various incidents in the past that have not been dealt with and made folks feel unsafe and unwelcome. I think. it’s reasonable, at least in this case, to get this one out quickly, but I do sympathise and understand we need to consider how we can do a better job generally on education around changes in the DAO. Interested in opening another discussion on this on the forum?

Love ideas :pray: Who would determine what is low/medium/high?

I’m not we can have a good answer for that question tbh. My hope is the Enforcement Guidlines will provide the Stewards with enough direction to act accordingly.

We already have a clause in here that deals with someone not honouring the process, how do you feel about this:

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.

I think getting this out there sooner rather than later and amending if we see it not working is better than waiting longer to try to perfect… good > perfect :slight_smile:

Sorry man, really not sure I follow here :frowning_face: can you try to rephrase?

hmmmmm - we definitely need to explain and reiterate the CoC and moderation process in the next town hall. Not sure being so explicit about the nature of the questions that folks might ask is the right way to go though; why not just an open Q&A with a time-limit? Such expansive emotive questions are important but it has the chance of consuming all the emotional energy and time on a Town Hall when there are a LOT of things to update on and discuss.