Title: bDIP - 6 - Code Of Conduct Change

Authors/Editors - infinitehomie.eth#4930, MinaHasNoIdea#6706

Scope - Patch

bDIP Summary:

Propose a Directive to update the Code Of Conduct. The Code of Conduct was Created pre to in -Season 5 to attend to general differences in the DAO. This Code of Conduct does not include directives towards bad actors, conflicts that go beyond Ombuds Inclusion, Or perceived behavior towards contributors.

bDIP Background:

This document is intended to give strength to decision making regarding contributors across the dao. This was created as a portion of a response to the recent actions regarding Coordinape. Actions took place that can be discussed here. Which were not in alignment with Bankless DAO. Directives based on these actions have not been documented. This Change to the Code of Conduct can serve as the start, to make those changes to further protect from bad actors.

bDIP Specification

See the following suggested change below:

OLD:

Code of Conduct

Every member of the BanklessDAO community is expected and is responsible to treat others with respect and dignity. We are a globally distributed community representing numerous cultures, languages, and time zones. It’s our highest priority to be the most welcoming and inviting onboarding experience for Web3. To this end, we encourage any conflict to first be broached between involved persons. If this does not resolve the matter we encourage team champions or guild coordinators to help resolve the conflict. If this still doesn’t resolve the matter, parties are encouraged to approach the Ombuds office to help resolve the dispute. Our unity and internal cohesion are essential prerequisites to accomplishing our mission.

NEW:

Code of Conduct:

(ADD) This Is to serve as a Guide for Members across the Ecosystem. This conduct should extend but not be limited to:

• Discord
• Notion
• Dework
• Figma
• Miro

In exceptional cases in which real life interaction is facilitated between the members in the context of DAO related activities, the validity of the code of conduct should be maintained.

Every member of the BanklessDAO community is expected and is responsible to treat others with respect and dignity. (ADD) Mutual respect is encouraged between contributors. Due to the multicultural and diverse nature of the space we are building, misunderstandings, disagreements and conflicts are to be expected as occurring phenomena.

However, there are certain actions that do not align with Bankless DAO.

• Threats and acts of violence towards another contributor
  • Violence definition can be found here - Violence - Google Search
  • Violence is defined by the World Health Organization in the WRVH as “the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment
• Vulgar comments towards contributors pertaining to sex, or nudity
• Discrimination based on one’s immutable characteristics (sex, race, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, age, neurodiversity, or disability)

Contributors are expected to behave in a manner that acts in good faith of other contributors. Instances of

• Fraud
• Theft,
• Embezzlement
• Impersonation
• Abuse of DAO status or held role

are not aligned with the mission of BanklessDAO. These instances can potentially open the DAO to severe issues in the Web3 ecosystem.

In order to keep developing the idea of a comprehensive code of conduct, this proposal welcomes criticism and ideas from different levels of contributors in the DAO. BanklessDAO strives to be a community that can comfortably incubate ideas of all kinds to better promote the mission of the DAO. We welcome all ideas for evaluation and deeper understanding.

Conflict

Should conflict arise, members are encouraged to first attempt to resolve the conflict in a respectful manner. Should the conflict not be resolved at this point, we encourage contributors to reach out to the governance related role holders.These members could be Project Champions, Guild Coordinators, or Governance Coordinators. Should further resolution be needed, contributors can reach out to the Ombuds Office to mediate in the matter.

Offboarding:

Should a member admit to fraud, embezzlement, theft, or wrongdoing of a legal nature, a member from Ombuds should the matter with the suspected party. Should there either be evidence of serious wrongdoing, or an admission of wrongdoing, the member will be subject to possible removal from the DAO, all statuses removed, and the wallet address red flagged, depending exactly on the nature of the offense. This final decision will be left to the DAO, Legal Guild, Ops Department, or Governance Department.

EXPECTED IMPACT

Change to the DAO Code of Conduct that can be used to help make decisions on bad actors, and important issues.

ANALYTICS

None yet. Will look to potential Governance documents to guide with the “actions” based on a code of conduct.

NEXT STEPS:

1. Obtain Input
2. Consensus - Obtained
3. Vote
4. Enact depending on the result of voting.

Enact bDIP?

There’s a typo in the first sentence of the offboarding section.

It needs some wordsmithing. There is some awkward and complicated phrasing in spots.

This is ambiguous - “This final decision will be left to the DAO, Legal Guild, Ops Department, or Governance Department.”

Thank you for this comment.

I need some help with this one. I am unsure how to word this particular area. @DAOlexa @Eagle i wanted to tag in and consider thoughts on this section.

Hey @homie,

I still like the direction, but I think you may be jumping the shark on going straight for a bDIP, as I don’t think you have consensus or the input you need on this.

IMO, this is a very important update to the constitution, and should have a large degree of input from the DAO, and ideally the legal guild, ombuds, etc.

Likely the language will need to be very clear in certain places and intentionally ambiguous in others, to allow for a comprehensive and elegant code of conduct, because we can’t specifically account for all transgressions.

A path forward I could see on this is:

1. Generate a google doc DRAFT to allow input, debate and discussion.
2. Bring to legal guild, and share with the DAO (governance channel, etc)
3. ONCE VERY SOLID, propose to the DAO via forum.
   1. Potentially directly as bdip if you feel good enough about it.

Definitly other ways to go about it, but you get the idea.

@homie yes, of course. Are you okay with me doing the policy and sharing with you here and we can work off of it ?

I like this!

Thanks for the productive input that can help shed visibility on the problem at hand while giving good insight on what to do next.

It’s a good way to show that something needs to be done with getting input by as many as possible.

I hope that this continues forward with a goal of capturing more cohesiveness around the DAO.

Thank you for this!

Yes. Indeed.

I wanted an unconventional way of shedding light on an issue. This is perfect!

@homie - please have a look at the very first draft.

Everyone, feel free to comments, share your input, add your thoughts in the comments.

Please do not write on the doc directly.

VERY FIRST DRAFT OF THE CoC POLICY

Thank you for the opportunity to let us add input or comments to this.

Thank you, also, for such an eloquent execution of this first draft.

This will take many drafts to complete. It’s important to be done.

this is not a complete sentance?

change to

Should conflict arise, members are encouraged to first attempt to resolve the conflict in a respectful manner using non-violent language.

Are you asking the question of whether it is not a complete sentence or not?

This is not a clear question.

It sounds like you’re alluding to there being a typo. Is that what you are referencing?

“a member from Ombuds should the matter with the suspected misconduct”

I believe this is what @ernest_of_gaia is referencing. It reads like a typo. It could read “should discuss the matter” or something that indicates what the Ombud should do.

I have a further question. What can the DAO do if the bad actor does not admit to their wrongdoings, but there is sufficient evidence to prove otherwise?

(Edit: I made this comment very late, so I don’t know what changes were made within that time. I’m currently looking through proposals that have not reached quorum.)

Hello!

Thanks for the clarification. That is a typo.

I left out the word discuss.

A member from ombuds should discuss the matter with the person suspected of misconduct.

I believe that the code of conduct should be in the process of being discussed in the legal guild. I stopped working on it at the point where I understood that it was being worked on.

Thanks. I’m going to close this out.

1/Constitution should be minimal; these types of policies can be adopted without being contractual.

2/ it says the standard is a legal standard in offboarding. bad idea. opening up the courts directly as a form of resolution. the point is to keep DAOs out of courts and to have an organic resolution system.

Understand your opinion. Thank you for it!. What would the suggested resolution be?

How would they be adopted without being contracted?

I’ve closed this poll out. I look forward to @DAOlexa , legal guild, and governance to see this through

just to add here, but we did produce a code of conduct for the DAO back in May 2022

it is hosted on github