This means our project was used as example in what we all know as an experimental governance process correct ?
It seems unfair that our momentum to build on Optimism has occurred setbacks due to the trial & errors of the governance figuring out whether to vote on social justice issues.
This is very unfortunate and has delayed the development of the project which is intended to benefit the end users of the network and attract other builders. Another hurdle we must now overcome with this horrible stain left on our record.
A little confused here. There are many members of the governance who share roles with other governance ecosystems such as Gitcoin. We are also part of both ecosystems for example. Perhaps it would be helpful for others to disclose this on matters of voting for CoC violations. Is it too much to ask for extra clarification & transparency on this matter ?
I am fairly certain reviewers were rotated between the two proposals. As the partners note, the proposal scores appear to have increased based on feedback provided. As of Cycle 14, reviewers had the opportunity to make any proposer conduct matters explicit in the rubric (e.g. Cycle 14 Rubric Updates and below). In the case of this project, no proposer conduct matters appear to be taken into account as part of the review. It is hard to see how delegates voting on a proposal in the course of governance would be precluded from reviewing subsequent proposals. A conflict of interest would seem to require an interest that is adverse, and the suspension vote was a bygone matter by the time that the proposal was made, making it difficult to find an interest one way or another after the fact.
This post is the first time I have been made aware of the conflict of interest theory. Might it have made sense to raise the matter during Season 4? It is still very difficult to see the conflict, but had the matter been raised at the time of the proposals the matter could have been considered from a process perspective. Note, however, that had the council determined that you were correct that the two reviewers were conflicted (which does not seem to be the case here), the net result would have been no action on the proposal. Since Cycle 10, the grants council has an internal rule of decision that precludes voting action by one or fewer sub-committee members (see below).
Proposer Conduct
“The Council has added proposer conduct deductions. These deductions are to be used sparingly and are directed toward basic decency and respect for the review process. Noting that the Code of Conduct applies to delegates, badgeholders and grant recipients, the proposer deductions make it clear that non-delegate proposers are subject to minimum conduct standards. Deductions will be noted in any review documents as part of the rubric scoring. Particularly egregious conduct can result in a sub-committee vote to remove a proposal from consideration for the Cycle or the Season.”
Rule of Decision
“If one or more Sub-Committee members abstains from a vote, a vote will pass by the simple majority vote of the remaining members, provided there are more than one voting members remaining. If only one member of a Sub-Committee votes, the result will be to take no action on the proposed matter. For instance, if the matter being voted on relates to whether or not to include an application in the final review, the result will be not to include the application in the final review.”
I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt but honestly it’s something that everyone who is applying for a grant should be aware about. This has been weighing heavily on our consciousness & severely affected our mental health.
The CoC suspension was detrimental to our project on Optimism.
Having extreme doubts and cases of induced anxiety from the stress of wondering whether our grant was rejected for something personal has been a struggle for our team. I hope 
that no one else has to suffer the way that we have over the past year.
Especially when dedicating allotted resources & rewards from previous cycles of RetroPGF into building a product tailored for Public Goods on the network. We have had to make some serious life changes & personal sacrifices in order to keep moving forward with development since our suspension occurred.
1 Like