First letâs clear up some things. Doxxing is bad. Donât do it. If itâs an obvious black and white case of doxxing have admins act on it. Protect peopleâs privacy without beauraucratic processes that take months!!!
That said, I see no evidence of a misconduct. Itâs being withheld. I see links to deleted tweets and rebuttals ⌠and drama again without evidence. Thus I canât make an informed decision so I will most probably vote no here.
Whatâs more I deplore having to deal with this. I find it in bad taste, and I donât know about other delegates but I did not join optimism governance to decide who has been naughty on a kind of he said/ she said level of argument.
If thatâs how optimism governance is gonna be I will carefully consider if I want to have anything to do with it in the future.
And a code of conduct council also doesnât sound like a good idea. Deciding on whatâs good and whatâs bad behind closed doors. Thatâs what Iranâs âmorality policeâ does.
and yeah iâve been going back and forth on the CoC thing as an idea, as it seemed like a risk. but i think iâm a bit sunnier on it now - like when you say âhave admins act on itâ, i can imagine a set of people acting decisively and immediately to, for example, boot someone for doxxing or claw back grants or whatever when thereâs something obvious happening. we donât have that now. they can report on the what and why to be held accountable (and iâd like to think abuses would be pretty clear to those of us watching).
but the even more important point relates to the nightmare scenario of getting drowned in that he said/she said stuff. iâve been on the wrong end of these CoC reports, and where Iâve landed is that, in addition to actual naughtiness, thereâs always a risk of people for whatever reason introducing noise with spurious reporting and repeated character assassinations. iâve been ignoring the recent spate of it but really iâd just like to see some body that can shut that stuff down and even discourage future attempts to go after someone without evidence or reasonable due diligence or, worse, with an agenda. iâm pretty sure delegates will lose their minds otherwise.
the thing iâm more worried about is that as far as i know there still havenât been people raising their hand for this stuff. iâd like to see some responsible people take one for the team. itâs annoying work but it can be valuable.
Some ideas thought in this publication. In some DAOâs they use the role of the facilitator to moderate possible conflicts between forum users, such as slowing down chats, deleting aggressive messages, etc. Tools that the Discourse platform has to moderate the forum. In particular, it seems to me a good idea considering that we have something similar with GovNERDs, which after all are similar to facilitators.
It can still be difficult to know at what point to intervene or not, but it also prevents some discussions from escalating into a direction of conflict.
My final statement on this matter is pointing out that the accounts I used to challenge the embellishment of impact and work + alignment with the collective have all been previously shared publicly on this forum. This matter is not about doxxing and harassment. Itâs about calling out deceit and collusion and being cancelled for it.
The post that got reported showed how the Ethereum Honduras core team members have created fake projects to benefit from quadratic funding rounds and the lack of impact despite receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I believe that this rule and process is structured in a way that protects anyone using this forum for deceit and penalizes anyone for whistleblowing on that deceit.
I couldnât agree more about how this particular case went way out of proportion, even though it is not an isolated offense. I think this matter should be looked into at a moderation level as well, since thereâs clearly an agenda behind this censorship attempt right before RPGF3, as I previously had mentioned:
I also agree with @jackanorak 's statement, but I think that there are people doing great work for solutions to it.
On-chain governance isnât the best path to move forward here, but organizations like GravityDAO exist to handle these kind of situations at an off-chain, human level.
I significantly echo @lefterisjpâs sentiment in that doxxing is clearly bad but I donât think pulling all delegates into a review of this specific case for an on-chain vote makes sense as itâs challenging to make a fully informed decision and get pulled into a he said/she said situation.
The part I slightly disagree on with Lefterisâ post is I think a code of conduct council of elected Optimism community members is at least a better approach than having all delegates review each case. It does not feel like the best use of everyoneâs time and attention. As a result, I will be abstaining because I donât feel qualified or compelled to make a decision in this situation.
We find this interesting seeing as how you were one of the top voters for our suspension. Yet we were highly outspoken by anyone when expressing similar concerns. This has damaged our project.
Honestly, I thought that was a one-off case and so I spent time digging in and trying my best to understand the situation. Seeing these be escalated again to all delegates is where I feel the need to push back. I stand by my statement that I donât think pulling all delegates into these types of cases is the best use of everyoneâs time.
Based on the communityâs thoughts on the situation, Iâm voting Abstain, and recommending the Code of Conduct Council (if approved) to retroactively handling this violation in a future voting cycle. Iâm not voting Against because this was always part of the Code of Conduct policies / Operating Manual, including for this voting cycle, that the Foundation will adjudicate code of conduct violations and reserve evidence where required to retain privacy, and we have had one successful vote along the same lines.
Hi everyone - It is absolutely within reason for any delegate to chose to abstain on this or any other Code of Conduct Violation votes. We have taken feedback that the process of all delegates being asked to vote on these issues is undesireable into account and are proposing a Code of Conduct Council to eliminate this responsibility for delegates in the immediate future (provided the Councilâs budget is approved in this voting cycle.)
To address concerns that the Code of Conduct will operate behind closed doors:
All Council members will be publicly elected and are subject to removal at any time if they abuse their position on the Council
All Council decisions will be published each voting cycle, allowing individual enforcement decisions to be monitored and vetoed by the Token House if believed to be inappropriate
All Council members must be re-elected at the beginning of each Season and the continuation of the Code of Conduct Council itself will be subject to approval in Season 6
It is a requirement to have completed Gravity DAOâs conflict resolution training before serving on the Council. We welcome members of Gravity DAO to nominate themselves as Council members as well.
This is an initial experiment and we may find that this is not the optimal, long-term solution, but the intention is to experiment with alternatives that reduce the role of the Foundation and individual delegates in this process going forward.
Finally, the intent of these proposals is not to cancel anyone. Delegates may decide to vote ânoâ or âabstain,â in which case no suspension would take place. Please also keep in mind that a suspension is for a temporary period of 3 months, after which point a suspended delegate may resume activity in the community.
This is my own opinion and has nothing to do either with GovNerds or Grants Council.
To everyone claiming âthereâs no proofâ:
This means the dox happened but wonât be reproduced to keep privacy.
To those claiming a secret agenda please follow the facts:
Dox by Carlos came first
Then a dox report
Then this vote
If you follow the code of conduct, you wonât have this sort of problem. If you are going to dox, donât do it close to a retroPGF and you wonât suffer a âsecret agendaâ. Even better, donât dox.
We for certain feel as if our project has been the focus of this type of attack as well as the opposition from being accepted to the grants cycle after we served our suspension for three full monthsâŚ
Can you say for certain that there was no bias in scoring our grant due to our previous CoC suspension?
Also another question is how does this affect the badge holders decisions when distributing a badge to other members in the future?
Are we going to be discriminated against because of this violation on our record ?
I realize the foundation is only playing an administrative roll here, but by saying that âsufficient evidence has been providedâ without disclosing that evidence, where does that leave the rest of us as decision makers? The rebuttals by @Carlosjmelgar seem reasonable but I am not even sure where to go to find the other side of the story.
That leaves the options to be either:
a) Trust the foundationâs decision on the evidence and vote to to process the violation, without really understanding if Carlosâ rebuttal sufficiently challenges that evidence.
b) Go against the foundations evidence and vote to reject the suspension using the rebuttals in this thread by Carlos
c) Abstain in order to avoid being pulled into any controversy as a delegate in what appears to be a close call.
Personally, Iâd like to see this case postponed until we have the CoC Council set so that those elected representatives can make the decision with all the evidence in front of them.
Edit: I will be voting against with the recommendation that this report is re-submitted once the CoC Council is established and strongly encourage @Carlosjmelgar to avoid any behaviors that could have the perception of breaking community rules going forward.
Doxxing is absolutely unacceptable. Yet, the current proposal doesnât offer enough evidence for us delegates to make a well-informed decision. Itâs difficult to navigate a âhe said/she saidâ scenario without comprehensive details. Furthermore, the soon-to-be-introduced Code of Conduct Council promises a more efficient approach to such concerns. This council, formed of elected community members, seems better positioned to tackle these incidents compared to involving all delegates in individual case assessments. Due to the insufficient evidence and these upcoming changes, I donât find myself in a position to cast a vote on this matter and will choose to abstain.
The below response reflects the views of L2BEATâs governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Sinkas, and itâs based on the combined research, fact-checking and ideation of the two.
We are voting AGAINST this proposal.
We agree with @lefterisjpâs response to the post. We donât have enough information to make a fully informed decision here, and just browsing through both sides of the story, itâs not clear to us if the violation took place. And following the âinnocent until proven guiltyâ rule, we will vote against suspending @Carlosjmelgar.
We support the idea of this case being handled by the upcoming Code of Conduct Council, if it is approved.
While we acknowledge the severity of doxxing and because sensitive personal information was involved in this case understand that certain evidence was forced to be withheld. However, with such little information, it was impossible to make an informed decisions and we are left with only one side of the story from Carlosâ rebuttals.
So after discussion 404 DAO has decided to vote AGAINST rather than simply abstaining on the basis that:
This process seemed to lack the due process that Carlos and other individuals deserve when being brought up for âtrialâ for conduct.
These are not the types of votes that should be brought to the entire DAO
We support the experiment of a Code of Conduct council and see it as an improvement to the current conduct violation process. But we would also like to caution the DAO on simply adding more councils when ever a problem arises; we are not confident that a Code of Conduct Council is the best long term solution.
Hey there, this is my first post on the Optimism governance forum and I want to strongly agree and amplify what you are saying. This level of rolling around in the mud should be beneath the standards of conduct for the foundation.
Its disrespectful to the time of delegates by asking them to be the jury on the guilt or innocence of another human being without providing the necessary facts that a person with ethics and integrity would need to see in order to make the correct decision.
People who are building to create real impact in the world have infinitely more important things to do than waste their time debating a he said/she said argument.
The entire security thesis of Optimistic Rollups is that anyone should be able to submit a fraud proof to the network that proves the sequencer is misbehaving and acting maliciously.
From what I have seen, Carlos was attempting to submit a fraud proof to the decentralized network of delegates, which is one of the most important functions required to grow a sustainable a healthy network.
Edit: This first experience on the Optimism governance forum has been a huge shocker and eye opener for me so im adding on to this post just to hilight how bad this whole thing looks from an outside perspective. I have been thinking about what evidence was presented by the foundation for this vote, and has made me reconsider whether or not I even want to continue building on Optimism at all.
I think the token holder vote speaks for itself, that this was not a violation of the code of conduct or intentional doxxing.
Also want to hilight this take from griff.eth as I canât say it better myself.
This is a sick and dystopian forum of public humiliation, and it disgusts me that a foundation which claims to be âfunding the public goodâ could so openly make false accusations with malicious intent to slander and defame the character of another. So yeah, I have never cared to read or engage on too deeply on the governance forums, nor bothered to get involved in any of this politics stuff, but I just cannot get over my extreme disgust of this behavior that staying on the sidelines and being silent is just not an option for me.
So I would like to politely and formally request the Optimism Foundation to officially issue an apology to Carlos for publicly shaming him in this way, now that the vote has been finished.
This statement reflects my personal viewpoint and is not an official representation of GovNerds or the Grants Council.
In this particular scenario:
As an administrative entity, The Foundation received a Doxing report.
After careful review, They confirmed the validity of the dox, (I saw the dox before it was hidden).
The Foundationâs role is primarily administrative, and in accordance with the rules, they are required to initiate a Token House vote.
Itâs essential to understand that not following their own established procedures would undermine their commitment to neutrality. However, in conducting the vote, they are committed to safeguarding private information.
Before drawing any hasty or negative conclusions, itâs crucial to consider the context. I see you have four hours of reading and that may not provide a comprehensive understanding of the intricate processes followed by the foundation. I hope for understanding rather than demanding apologies from a foundation that diligently adheres to the decisions made through the Token House vote.
Sorry if this message comes across as too forceful but I wonât tolerate new users disrespecting the Foundation when there are hundreds of people and projects that have benefited and grown because of the foundationâs actions.
