Hello Optimists!
Following the various initiatives to keep an open governance, we aim to do the same.
There are various items in this post we have been working on, and exploring, and we believe the best way for us to proceed, is by opening up the conversation to the Collective, please share any ideas or points you might believe will be important in shaping the role of the CoCC.
In this thread, we are sharing and requesting feedback on the following:
1. Amendment to our Internal Procedures
2. Ideations on reputational attestations for OP citizens
3. Whitehat Safe Harbor Agreement
4. Proposal to Alter Token House Code of Conduct Council Charter for following Seasons
1. Amendment to our Internal Procedures
Procedure Following the Receipt of a Report
-
Notification Phase: Upon receipt of a report, the Code of Conduct Council (CoCC) will, within three (3) days, notify the involved parties of the report’s existence to ensure transparency and fairness in the process.
-
Investigative Phase: The CoCC will engage with the involved parties confidentially through the Council’s official account to gather comprehensive information pertinent to each case. This step is crucial for an informed decision-making process. The individuals or groups reported will be informed about the specifics of the report and will have until the Evaluation and Voting Period begins to submit any additional evidence or information they deem relevant for the assessment of the report.
-
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Should the CoCC ascertain that the report is amenable to ADR methods and the involved parties consent to this approach, the CoCC will facilitate this process. This stage will suspend any further evaluation or decision-making by the CoCC, and a designated lead from the CoCC will oversee the ADR process.
-
Evaluation and Voting Period: The Evaluation and Voting Period begins two working days before the Decision period following the collection of all pertinent information, CoCC members will independently review the details of the open reports. "Each member will contribute to a shared Report Evaluation Document and cast an anonymous vote. Decisions within the CoCC will be reached by a simple majority. The Lead of the CoCC, while not a voting member, shall possess the authority to make decisive calls in the event of a deadlock among the Council members. The CoCC’s voting will focus on two key aspects: the occurrence of a violation and the severity of the said violation.
-
Decision Period: Two (2) working days before the conclusion of the Review Period, the CoCC will finalize the evaluation of all reports received during the said period. The findings will be presented as an “Optimistic Vote” to the Token House, allowing for a potential veto of any enforcement actions proposed by the CoCC. A comprehensive document detailing the resolution of each report, along with relevant non-confidential information, will be published for the involved parties and the broader community, maintaining the confidentiality of specific details as required.
As per the Token House Code of Conduct Council Charter where a report cannot be addressed within the current Review Period due to it being submitted less than 3 days before the end of the Review Period, the CoCC will ensure its resolution before the conclusion of the subsequent Review Period.
In the event of a Voting Conflict: Council members are required to disclose any conflicts of interest immediately and recuse themselves from the decision-making process regarding the report in question. The remaining Council members will proceed with the vote, with a simple majority constituting a quorum.
Addressing Dissatisfaction with Council Decisions: Parties dissatisfied with the CoCC’s decision may request a one-time reconsideration of the report through a designated form. Additionally, if new evidence emerges that was not previously reviewed by the CoCC, a new report may be filed.
Subsequent Violations: Should the reported parties persist in their problematic behavior following a decision and the imposition of an enforcement action, it is imperative to report this continued misconduct to the CoCC through a new report.
Follow-up: After the decisions of the CoCC are communicated and legitimated by community vote, there will be a watch phase of 2 review periods for the implementation actions proposed.
Documentation and Accountability: All claims, reports, and enforcement decisions must be thoroughly documented, with non-confidential information and public resolutions being communicated through the community forum.
Council Members’ Obligations: Council members are expected to participate in over 70% of the votes. The Lead is responsible for coordinating the review process, convening regular Council meetings (at least once per Voting Cycle), and acting as a tiebreaker in the event of a deadlock on administrative or operational matters.
A retrospective analysis will be conducted at the end of each Season to ensure all documentation is current for incoming Council members.
Maintaining CoCC Transparency: Summaries of accomplished items during the meetings from Council meetings will be accessible to the community through the forum. At the end of each Review Period, the CoCC will publish a summary of enforcement decisions made during the Voting Cycle. These decisions are subject to optimistic approval, meaning they are deemed approved unless explicitly vetoed by the Token House. Should any enforcement action garner more than 12% of “no” votes from the votable supply, it will be escalated to a full Token House vote in the subsequent Voting Cycle, and no enforcement action will be taken in the interim.
Modifications to Internal Procedures: Any amendments to these internal procedures require approval by a majority plus one of the CoCC members. No more than one modification may be implemented per Season, and all amendments will be publicly disclosed through the forum.
We want to state the Importance of Malleable Internal Operating Procedures in Experimental Governance Structures
2. Ideations on reputational attestations for OP citizens
The CoCC has explored issuing reputational and mutual acknowledgment attestations for OP token holders and citizens. We believe the collective affirmation of common truths (like the Code of Conduct) is a means by which we maintain a unified ideology and understanding. There are multiple facets to reputation, and the CoCC thinks it could be prudent and possible to highlight positive actions that reinforce the CoC in the spirit of idealism versus issuing a negative reputation for violations of the CoC. We are still just exploring these sorts of ideas and welcome any feedback or further suggestions from the Collective.
3. Whitehat Safe Harbor Agreement
The Council has been researching certain initiatives that might interest the collective, one of them being the Whitehat Safe Harbor Agreement which is “ a framework in which protocols can offer legal protection to whitehats who aid in the recovery of assets during an active exploit”, the procedure to adopt it, is though a community review and approval, this might be of special interest to the Security Council, and we are looking to open up the conversation.
Relevant Links:
4. TEMP CHECK: Proposal to Alter Token House Code of Conduct Council Charter for following Seasons
Over the first half of Season 5, within the inaugural Token House Code of Conduct Council, it has become apparent to the CoCC membership group that the timelines and deadlines to accept, evaluate, and respond to Reports, as directed by the Token House approved Charter, has been severely limiting in achieving optimal outcomes for the Optimism Collective.
The current Charter dictates that all Reports must be processed and concluded within a single Voting Cycle, i.e. the maximum time we have to process a Report is three weeks, and as for the minimum, the charter even dictates that we must fully process a Report even if it’s submitted in as little as four (4) days before the end of Review Period deadline.
Considering the detailed nature of some reports, the length and complexity of some disputes, and the CoCC’s obligations to affected parties and the wider Optimism community, having a window spanning from four (4) days to three (3) weeks to accept, review, and process these cases isn’t functional. It may be leading to poor overall outcomes from the CoCC structure. The Charter’s tight deadlines put unrealistic expectations on the CoCC membership and even lead to conflict among CoCC members when it comes to managing these timeframes. All CoCC members are well-intentioned and optimistic, and all still believe in the CoCC as the best alternative to, the centralization of the Foundation administering the Code of Conduct on one hand, and the full Token House administering the Code of Conduct on the other. However, the CoCC’s effectiveness has been hampered by the unforeseen difficulty created by the Charter’s timeframes.
Thus, we’d like to temp-check the following Proposal:
The current charter is amended from:
“Process all Code of Conduct Violation reports, excluding Grant Misusage reports which will still go to a full Token House vote, by the end of the nearest review period. If the end of the nearest review period is less than 3 days away, the report may be processed by the end of the next nearest review period.”
And changed to:
“Process all Code of Conduct Violation reports, excluding Grant Misusage reports which will still go to a full Token House vote, by the end of the nearest Season, and process any Code of Conduct Violation reports excluding Grant Misusage Reports, earlier if possible and practical. If the end of the nearest Season is less than 3 days away, the report may be processed by the end of the next nearest Season.”
The CoCC encourages your feedback on this draft Proposal. Please share your thoughts, comments, and feedback, so as a collective, we can find the next, best iteration of the CoCC to experiment with.
Have a great week,
CoCC