Delegate Suspension: Fractal Visions

Technical Proposals 📃
,
28

Hi everyone, good to see the engagement on this thread. We’d like to clarify our role in the Code of Conduct process.

As outlined in the Code of Conduct, the Foundation plays a purely administrative role in this process and does not adjudicate whether violations have occurred. When a report is filed through the reporting forms linked in the Code of Conduct, we verify the following:

  1. That a specific violation of the Code of Conduct has been properly identified (i.e. Violation #10a); and
  2. That sufficient evidence to prove a plausible violation has been provided such that someone (i.e. the Token House) can make a judgment as to whether the violation occurred.

If a submitted report meets the above two criteria, it will move forward and follow the enforcement process outlined in the Code of Conduct.

To address concerns expressed about this specific instance:

  • Reporting process

    • The violation was reported using the process outlined in the Code of Conduct; it was not reported to the support NERDs. The Foundation only reviews reports that are reported using the appropriate reporting form linked in the Code of Conduct.

  • Specific violation

    • The severe violation that has been reported is doxxing and this vote pertains to that specific violation of the Code of Conduct. We included the full report text, as authored by the reporter, edited as minimally as possible for understandability. This includes references to other violations, which we have not edited out, to limit active involvement on our part.
    • As we outlined in the proposal, the violation that is up for vote relates to doxxing. You do not need to consider any other violations.

  • Evidence

    • As outlined in the proposal, the reporter included sufficient evidence to prove a plausible violation, including 6 files documenting the doxxing (full pictures of the reporter’s face) as well as screenshots of conversations substantiating the doxxing. In cases such as doxxing, the Foundation does not make public the evidence that was submitted without the reporter’s consent in order to protect their privacy. The definitions of doxxing that we use can be found here: Guidance on Severe Violations.

  • Notice

    • Fractal Visions was privately given notice in advance of the proposal being posted. They were told that a report had been filed and a proposal for their suspension would go to a vote.
    • Fractal Visions had and continues to have the opportunity to respond in the relevant forum post.
    • We do not run a mediation or conflict resolution process, as that goes beyond our role as neutral administrator. We are open to suggestions for adjusting or better establishing a notice period and public response norms.

  • Please remember that the suspension is temporary and lasts for a period of three months. Additionally, voting is not mandatory. Any delegates that do not feel they have sufficient information or are uncomfortable voting on this proposal may abstain.

We welcome suggestions for alternative methods of enforcing the Code of Conduct that reduce or eliminate the Foundation’s role in the process while also minimizing governance overhead. The Foundation is not an arbiter and does not adjudicate whether violations occurred, and given that we are moving towards decentralization, we don’t believe the Foundation should temporarily implement and administer an onerous governance process around adjudication.

7 Likes