search

dOrgTech / docs

A place for tracking operational resources and tasks
MIT License
17 stars 12 forks source link

DSP 13: Add dOrg Code of Ethics #100

Closed benefacto closed 3 years ago

benefacto commented 3 years ago

Closes #9

dOrgJelli commented 3 years ago

Looks great! Also, what's the rational behind slashing REP of inactive members? I kind of like the idea of keeping people's REP assigned to their accounts, and in the event of airdrops anything they don't claim will go to the other members who have claimed.

benefacto commented 3 years ago

Looks great! Also, what's the rational behind slashing REP of inactive members? I kind of like the idea of keeping people's REP assigned to their accounts, and in the event of airdrops anything they don't claim will go to the other members who have claimed.

That's an excellent counterpoint and I plan on scheduling a meeting to review these proposed changes when they're near final. The challenge with having inactive members with Rep is that (as you will see in my coming changes) passing a proposal to suspend or expel a member will likely have to be done through absolute majority. This is because I anticipate malicious down-staking of those proposals to occur by the supendee/expellee which would necessitate a staking bidding war to pass these proposals via relative majority (boosting). There's also a risk of a aggrieved supendee/expellee retaliating by attempting to halt dOrg operations by downstaking all proposals. Obtaining absolute majorities to counter this could be challenging or even impossible if some large Rep holders are inactive (and busy/incommunicado). I'm open to other alternatives though--perhaps there's some way to reconfigure our DAOStack DAO to address these issues?

Edit: Also, if a builder wishes to remain active, they could pass a proposal for a small amount (e.g 1 xDAI) to show they're still engaged with dOrg before the threshold is reached

namesty commented 3 years ago

I have a few questions. Sometimes, the corrective/restauratory measures require measurement of the severity of the offense. Sometimes, to even select a measure there is some judgement required (expulsion, for instance, requires us to deem the offender's attiude incorregible).

-Should there be a proposal and the whole DAO vote? -Should it be handled privately but asking all repholders for opinion, if so, does rep make the opinion's wieght vary? -Should it be reserved for dOrg admins (51% rep treshold)? -Should we come up with a different treshold for these kinds of decisions? -Should we take in the opinions of all members but if the offender has endorsed others, should the endorsed be left out to avoid bias? Just brainstorming.

benefacto commented 3 years ago

Really great questions all around, Nestor! I confess that there are some questions that I have shied away from answering within the code of conduct to avoid centralization of power or limiting adaptability within dOrg.

I have a few questions. Sometimes, the corrective/restauratory measures require measurement of the severity of the offense. Sometimes, to even select a measure there is some judgement required (expulsion, for instance, requires us to deem the offender's attiude incorregible).

* So, who are the ones who would take these decisions and how?:

-Should there be a proposal and the whole DAO vote?

Any builder could choose to make a proposal based on this but their proposal should be evaluated by the DAO based on whether the enforcement processes outlines in the Code of Ethics were followed and whether the enforcement option selected is proportionate on a case-by-case basis.

-Should it be handled privately but asking all repholders for opinion, if so, does rep make the opinion's wieght vary?

I think pre-mediation, it can be handled privately, if need be. But if mediation occurs, I think a 'censure' proposal is important as record of a sort of a formal written warning to the offenders (think of it as a comparable warning step to more traditional companies). In the proposal case, Rep would vary opinion weight as it traditionally does. I think it's okay to have opinion weight vary according to Rep as Rep should ideally represent investment & contribution in dOrg: someone who is more invested in dOrg's success should have more Rep, someone who is less should have less (this is also part of the reason I propose removing Rep on deactivation).

-Should it be reserved for dOrg admins (51% rep treshold)?

The dOrg moderators are admins in this case so I see them as responsible for deciding whether an individual should retain access to internal spaces during this process and to what extent.

-Should we come up with a different treshold for these kinds of decisions?

This is the best that I've been able to come up with so far but I'd be open to other suggestions.

-Should we take in the opinions of all members but if the offender has endorsed others, should the endorsed be left out to avoid bias? Just brainstorming.

I think that should certainly be taken into account by the builders and be noted in the record of any disciplinary proposal. 

* Who should/will conduct mediations?

I think a mutually agreeable mediator could be selected with consensus of the victim(s) and the offender(s) (any builder within dOrg). If there is no consensus, it should be one of the dOrg admins.

Let me know if any of these thoughts should result in revisions/clarifications to the code.

Remscar commented 3 years ago

Looks great! Also, what's the rational behind slashing REP of inactive members? I kind of like the idea of keeping people's REP assigned to their accounts, and in the event of airdrops anything they don't claim will go to the other members who have claimed.

I wish there was a way to remove people's REP from the total voting pool when they are inactive, but keep it intact for things like airdrops. If someone has 10% of the total REP and is inactive, that's 10% of the votes that will never be cast.

Remscar commented 3 years ago

I think this is well put together. I'll give it another read tomorrow, but for now some things that stick out to me:

orishim commented 3 years ago

Looks great! Also, what's the rational behind slashing REP of inactive members? I kind of like the idea of keeping people's REP assigned to their accounts, and in the event of airdrops anything they don't claim will go to the other members who have claimed.

I wish there was a way to remove people's REP from the total voting pool when they are inactive, but keep it intact for things like airdrops. If someone has 10% of the total REP and is inactive, that's 10% of the votes that will never be cast.

I think this is fine as long as we treat everything as just requiring relative majority. needing absolute majority will never be scalable (even at our current size)

This can be emphasized when we move to a new optimistic smart contract framework (proposals pass by default unless people start objecting, in which case it is decided by relative majority)

benefacto commented 3 years ago

I think this is well put together. I'll give it another read tomorrow, but for now some things that stick out to me:

* How do we keep documents private and/or only visible for dOrg members? Are they just on Google Drive shared only with the organization?

I think Google Drive is the only method we have currently and I believe it's a reasonable one in the short term.

* What is extent of "Accepting work from dOrg clients/partners independently without paying a referral fee (20%) to dOrg for sourcing said work"; If i'm not mistaken, there are some dOrg members who have gone on to work for dOrg clients independently and I don't think they have been paying the referral fee. There might need to be some more clear guidelines, or expirations around this

Many of the existing rules in the code of ethics are related to things that have actually occurred. I don't think it makes sense to go months back to enforce this provisional code retroactively. But going forward, we should be on the look out for this and raise the issue if this behavior is observed. It shouldn't be an incredibly controversial topic if a builder is freelancing with one of our clients/partners, they'd just have to add 20% to their fee. If they are becoming employed, then the logistics are more difficult and may require some changes to our contractor term sheet.

* Who is a moderator? Are they voted on? A formal process may need to be mentioned, even if it's just a something we vote on and then they become a moderator.

There used to be documentation about this but I don't know where it went. @orishim may know. Essentially, we once had an admin threshold based on Rep but I'm not sure if that's changed. We probably should have processes around this but I'm not sure what the current state is and why it changed.

benefacto commented 3 years ago

Questions still to answer:

orishim commented 3 years ago

There used to be documentation about this but I don't know where it went. @orishim may know. Essentially, we once had an admin threshold based on Rep but I'm not sure if that's changed. We probably should have processes around this but I'm not sure what the current state is and why it changed.

@benefacto we used to have an admin threshold at 30,000 but it was never formally accepted to my knowledge and it was in place when we were a lot smaller and only a few people had 30k rep.

An alternative proposed by @dOrgJelli is that the members holding the top 50% of reputation are considered mods. I think this could be sufficient for now but also does not seem like a firm long-term solution. Based on current rep that would work out to the top 7 rep holders.

orishim commented 3 years ago
  • [x] Should suspension include Rep slashing? Should there be a suspension option without Rep slashing or is the risk of retaliation too high?

I think we could keep it simple by having a default penalty like "10 day suspension with 10% Rep slash"

  • [x] Should deactivation from inactivity include Rep slashing? Or do the builder experience benefits (indefinite Airdrops proportionate to Rep) outweigh the potentially lost voting power and its accompanying risks?

I do not think that inactivity should be accompanied by rep slashing.

JovianBrowne commented 3 years ago

I think this entire code of ethics is a huge game changer for operations and community practice in dOrg. It should be reviewed by every member and comments provided over a reasonable timeframe - this went up for a vote at the start of the holiday weekend and it may pass before people get back to work on Tuesday. They may feel excluded from having their voices heard

JovianBrowne commented 3 years ago

@orishim @dOrgJelli @namesty

Specific feedback - I don’t know how understandable it will be to people who pursue unwanted contact with members.

Hard to understand >> Engagement in abuse, discrimination, disrespect, harassment, or promotion of said or otherwise offensive content against/to any prospective/past/current dOrg client/partner/builder

benefacto commented 3 years ago

TO-DO (takeaways from Discord discussion):

dOrgJelli commented 3 years ago

Hard to understand >> Engagement in abuse, discrimination, disrespect, harassment, or promotion of said or otherwise offensive content against/to any prospective/past/current dOrg client/partner/builder

In my opinion this is what we have group consensus for. Feel something has broken this rule? Create a vote. This is the only concrete way we have to poll the collective's sensibilities (IMO).

orishim commented 3 years ago

https://alchemy.daostack.io/dao/0x94a587478c83491b13291265581cb983e7feb540/proposal/0x61d420be1c718590c1faf18e4d39f8d32e0a62451f00a8bcefa8ba6fa0d7aee2