Code of Conduct Council S6 Election Town Hall

Elected Representatives 💼
1

You can find a link to the recorded Season 6 Code of Conduct Council Election Town hall here.

Congratulations to all the self-nominees! The following folks have officially self-nominated for the Season 6 Code of Conduct Council as council members (note that any OP Chain or Citizenship affiliation is highlighted):

@Bubli.eth (link to self-nomination)

@CryptoReuMD (link to self-nomination)

@JuanRah (link to self-nomination)

@Oxytocin (link to self-nomination)

@NazreAssad (link to self-nomination)

@Gabriel29 (link to self-nomination)

@Pumbi (link to self-nomination)

@fujiar (link to self-nomination) - Citizen

@gospelofchange (link to self-nomination)

@Gus (link to self-nomination)

@alexsotodigital (link to self-nomination)

@eve633 (link to self-nomination)

The Code of Conduct Council Town Hall will be hosted on Tuesday, July 30th from 1pm - 2pm ET / 5pm - 6pm GMT.

You can find the invite via the public Governance Calendar.

As of now, the structure of the Town Hall will be each nominee will have 60 seconds to answer one question from the Foundation:

  • What unique skills or habits will you bring to the Code of Conduct Council to ensure it delivers measurable impact towards the approved KPIs?

Reporter Experience KPIs:

  • Response time and response rate on filed reports
  • Number of reports that de-escalate without enforcement actions and the number of reports with enforcement actions.
  • Accountability and transparency around the due processing of cases with recurrent posting on the forum.
  • Number of updates to charters and operating procedures to match the functionality of the council to the evolving seasonal nature of Optimism.
  • Availability and ease of access to the council with monthly office hours, where the community can raise or get information on cases processed.

Performance KPIs:

  • Number of community members that disengage/resign/offboard due to unmanaged conflict
  • None, or least amount of token votes regarding Conflict management actions related to implementing rules of engagement. (As council members remain removable via the Representative Removal proposal, it is desired to not have any member removed or signaled through that mechanism)
  • Separate the collective from the visibility of conflicts managed, and their outcomes.
  • Mid and end-season analysis from the council about patterns identified in cases, to signal improvement opportunities. Shared in the forum.

Self-nominees who aren’t able to attend live may share a ~60 second video answering the question above. If applicable, this video will be played live on the call.

If you’re a delegate, and you’re interested in asking a question to all self-nominees during the Town Hall please comment it below. If time allows one question at random will be picked from the list of delegate questions in this thread.

If you have specific questions for specific nominees, please comment them below as well and council nominees may answer the questions async.

As a reminder, candidate assessments will take place until July 31st, and the Voting Period for elections will take place from August 1st - August 7th.

10 Likes
2

Very excited to hear from the self-nominees today. See you there! :slight_smile:

3

GM everyone! I asked a couple of questions during the call and I’ll share them here so more people can see the answers and also, more nominees can respond:

I remember two important cases related to the CoCC. The first one is this one.
If there had been a CoCC at that time, what should they have done? How should it have been processed?

The second case is the NFTearth issue. You can find information about this in the CoCC communication thread. What would you have done differently or what would you have proposed if you had been part of that CoCC?

Thank you for participating in this process! I saw great profiles during the call, and this decision is really hard. You all are amazing!

cc. @eve633 (Thanks for replying via DM)

2 Likes
4

Thank you @brichis, ill paste the information here:
During the call i’ve addressed the importance of ethics and some similarities that i found in the ethics and governance proposal that the WHO did about artificial intelligence and why this is important for the future of Optimism and conflict resolution.
Here is the presentation that i’ve made in a Rheumatology International Congress,
https://www.canva.com/design/DAF6FhSyqxw/v6KG5Y_FNVt6AFDmreHWtQ/view?utm_content=DAF6FhSyqxw&utm_campaign=designshare&utm_medium=link&utm_source=editor

The only problem is that it’s in Spanish. But here are some of the documents that i’ve used:
1.- Ethics and governance of artificial intelligence for health
2.- Ossa, L. A., et al. (2024)… BMC Medical Ethics, 25(1), 10.

2 Likes
5

hey guys! @Gus here! sorry about my conexion problems in yesterday’s call, but here a video anwering to the unique skills questions:

answering to @brichis questions:

A doxxing case is generally easy (not to say obvious) to identify and verify it as a CoC violation. In that case, I think a temporal suspension from the forum should be taken immediately (including the removal of the non-autorized disclosure of the private information on the forums), while the decision of removing him/her/they from the community should be discussed by de CoCC depending of course of the level of agresion and the likelyhood of that hapenning again.

the CoCC proclamation after each violation report seems fair and aware towards the Optimism community, it’s hard for me to say I’ve done anything differently without having the proper and deeper context. What I can say tho, is that I’d have bring Formal Consensus dynamics to the CoCC discussion framework in order to assure holistic participation through inclusive, open, and transparent procedures that actually encourage cooperative resolution to conflicts.

2 Likes
6

Thank you for sharing this @Gus!

7

thank you for these questioins @brichis :slight_smile: here are my thoughts.

Doxxing case: As a member of CoCC I would arrange a private mediation between the parties. The information provided by the Foundation does not make it possible to determine if intentional doxxing took place. The accused party took time & initiative to defend himself, providing screenshots & attestations of his contributions to the Optimism Collective, clearly demonstrating that he values the community & his reputation within it. A live conversation between the parties would need to take place to understand the intentions & motivations of each party. I agree that opening this issue to the forum without providing adequate context unfairly shames the accused party.

NFTearth: I would
a) do a thorough investigation of the evidence of wrongdoing against the NFTEarth Team
b) request additional evidence from the NFTEarth Team supporting their denial of wrongdoing
c) if maintaining the decision to override the vote to remove, provide evidence to the community of why the vote was overridden

I want to respond to some other community sentiments from the threads as well:

  • I believe that communication & mediation are the most effective ways to handle conflict rather than accusations & judgements
  • many expressed frustration at dealing with the doxxing situation because it was tedious & a distraction to their work. navigating human interactions & fighting for the truth are inspiring & energizing to me, I would enjoy doing this work
  • some expressed hesitance that a Code of Conduct Council would not be transparent, I would ensure transparency & accountability in my work on the Council
  • I would support the development of transformational platforms which bake in the inevitability of conflict & use it as an opportunity to bolster the resilience of the Collective

Thank you!

3 Likes
8

Hi!

Thanks @brichis for sharing these questions and inviting dialogue in transparency.

1.- In the doxxing case, I agree with @eve633 that private mediation could be a good approach (after having one-on-one meetings with both parties).

It seems to me that, beyond ‘making a decision’ (such as a possible suspension), it is important to understand the underlying needs that prompted the doxxing in the first place; as it probably reveals a half-truth that we could learn from collectively.

I also think that allowing the parties to reach an agreement on the severity of the sanction could be enlightening and constructive, and generally invites conciliation.

Generally speaking, I find that arguing over text in public forums tends toward polarization rather than integration, so I would look for avenues for resolution that promote human connection before inciting a third-party vote without full context.
:upside_down_face:

2.- In the case of NFTearth, it seems to me that it would have been positive to take advantage of the conflict to better communicate the reason for the decision taken and perhaps trigger a participatory process (using liberating structures) where:

  • there is reflection on failures in the process (where the decision was taken) and ways to improve it in the future.
  • a symbolic closure is made where the initial spirit of the project is rescued and a transmutation is enabled to integrate that motivation into the current situation.
  • the necessary apologies are expressed and an appropriate solution is co-created.
    :dizzy:

Above all, I would remind the collective that the CoCC, like many other things, is a living experiment that we can continue to refine.

I assume that enabling more avenues to integrate objections at early stages (as I understand office hours to be) will promote that these do not become explosive criticisms that generate fragmentation.

Or, in other words, continue to cultivate an optimistic attitude based on prevention rather than looking for someone to blame.

Opening this conversation is a good example, so thanks again for asking, reading and reacting. :slight_smile:

1 Like
9

Hey @brichis thanks for the questions.

In the case of doxxing, the first thing would have been the collection of all the evidence for analysis within the CoCC and its removal from the public forum. I agree with previous comments that the best way would have been a private mediation between the parties to understand the seriousness of the doxxing better and hear all the arguments that led to this situation.

I’m very curious about the case of the accused who presented a great amount of evidence. An individual who is very involved with the Collective and shows good will/predisposition. What was the trigger to have taken such an action? Understanding the motivation behind it can help to comprehend the origin of the conflict and look for ways to ensure that such situations are not repeated in the future.

The CoC rules are very clear. A temporary suspension of the accused is valid.
The severity of the suspension would be subject to several factors: Was there a settlement between the parties? How much sensitive information was made public?

For the NFTEarth case, it is difficult to add anything additional without having all the necessary context and evidence. I feel that the CoCC members were right in all decisions, but following the thread it is evident that one of the parties was not satisfied with the measures imposed and that the process (after the measure was taken) became very long and unclear. Could more have been done to ensure that all parties end up satisfied with the results?

It is important to remember that the CoCC is an experiment now in its second season, the structure is still being refined and adjusted to react more and more effectively to different situations that may arise.

I feel that the members of the first season of the CoCC did a great job laying the groundwork and defining the scope, opportunities and how this Council really wants to operate. Undoubtedly, their work will be of great help for this new season.

2 Likes