Iām 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 itās a bit more work for someone. Thoughts on who that should be?
The alternative world would be if they are caught doing it; thatās 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 letās 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 donāt 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 donāt see any jarring errors.
1 Like
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. Iām super happy to see it finding its feet. 
One more āactā 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 anotherās ideas as your own, in order to promote yourself. Itās bad enough when it happens among colleagues, but if othersā hard work is claimed as your own to a different audience, especially in public spaces, itās quite simple what it is. Simply put. itās 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, weāre working across many contexts and channels of communication. Itās 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 ātitleā 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.
Letās 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 weāre moving in a good direction. Once again, thank you D_D.
1 Like
Those are very good points. Iāll drop some ideas here. Let me know what you think:
- Twitter thread explain core concepts alongside snapshot post (+ shared in newsletter/announced on discord)
- Added to @Erik_Knobl DAO Operating system on passing.
- 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 elseās work as your own
- Abusing this process
Itās nice to see coc proposal on the process.
From our ddw team we will encourage member to always learn about coc violations and itās process.
I have 2 concerns,
- how can we convince folks that itās worth reporting these violations? Because some folks might just leave rather than creating ruckus and find a community thatās 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
Very valid concern; I have this too. Think it boils down to education and clear documentation. As a min, Iād personally like to see:
- This given a very clear place on Github, Notion and D_D Operating System
- 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 someoneās DM, whilst the DAO can take action to remove them from the server etc. it canāt 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
Iām 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 donāt 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
- Iām away on holidays for 2 weeks and I donāt see any messages
- I come back and I post a photo about Vitalikās 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 Iām 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
(never more than 7 days because it can be traumatic experience for a person if itās too long) - medium
(never more than 2 weeks and also ensuring the victim is okay) - low
(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 wasnāt 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. - Iām claiming this i.e. I created this - itās 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 ā¦busy daysā¦
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 hallā¦maybe with an open question as a thought/title āHow 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 DAOā - Iām sure a great mind like your own could condense such a message into a short sentence. Brevity isnāt one of my strong points/
As for grace periods, iām sorry Iām not too sure.
1 Like
I fully understand your points here. However, to share another scenario from the otherside of this.
Letās 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. Iām aware of various incidents in the past that have not been dealt with and made folks feel unsafe and unwelcome. I think. itās 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 
Who would determine what is low/medium/high?
Iām 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 perfectā¦ good > perfect 
Sorry man, really not sure I follow here 
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.
What happens if one of the Facilitators is the accused one?