(Final) V2. Code of Conduct Council Operating budget re-scope for season 6. (cycle 23b)


This is an iteration from a previous proposal that was defeated on voting on cycle 23a.

We are trying to include the feedback received to re-scope and aim for support to renew the Code of Conduct Council operations. If successfully renewed this Season, the CoCC will become a persistent structure in the Collective, assumed to continue unless/until a Council Dissolution proposal is put forward. If this proposal is defeated again in special voting cycle 23b, no new proposals will be submitted by the same prospective lead on this subject, for season 6 of the collective.

The scope of this proposal is to delegate the responsibility of the enforcement of rules of engagement and severe violations, to a group of seasonally elected contributors that would assume decision-making capacities on the management of the disputes and conflicting cases that arise in the community.

If this operating budget is not approved, enforcing the rules of engagement will be administered by SupportNERDs. Who are not selected by the Foundation or token voting, and operate as an open contribution path. If any decisions made by the supportNERDs are questioned, they may be appealed to a third party. (likely a party contracted to provide mediation services.)

Why is this proposed council relevant?

  • Imposing sanctions is a big responsibility: Providing due process for cases requires time and effort, and not being deliberate around this could result in being overly punitive or influenceable. The needs of the council members are of high context and highly specialized skills.
  • Accountability to the collective: The Council works with elected members who will be held accountable for their decisions and are seasonally elected to allow open participation. Members of the Council are removable via the Representative Removal proposal type outlined in the Operating Manual.
  • It takes a community to create a culture: Managing conflict is not only related to big cases and situations that require the enforcement of sanctions. The approach towards detection of conflict early by opening the space for small feedback loops will support the effectiveness of the work of the council in identification and capacity to solve cases (A stitch in time saves nine)
  • Governance accessibility: The council provides easy-to-access spaces to deal with conflict for every collective member, respecting the organization’s autonomy and trying to be neutral in decision-making. The Council does not charge more if there are more cases, we are proposing a one-time payment at the end of the season.
  • Progressive decentralization: The Council plays a key role in the autonomy of the collective, transferring authority to trusted members on taking a role that cover some needs that were being managed by the foundation or with voting processes before season 5. This council is an iteration of several efforts to reduce governance overhead from conflicts.
  • Minimizing, but planning for the future: Having this Council responds to a very particular need in communities which is having an internal management layer where conflict could be held privately. Managing conflict contributes to the perceived well-being of organizations, and investing on infrastructure for emergencies shapes the organizational ability to navigate the VUCA context we experience in Web3.

Proposal description:

Proposed Council Lead: Juan Carlos Bell

Proposed Council Operating Budget: 26.000 OP (+8.000 OP increase from last Season)

Contact Info: (@juankbell Op forum) - (@bellcho X) - juankbell (Discord) -

- Please link to any previous work or qualifications to be Council Lead:

Regenscore: My on-chain interaction has been mostly in Optimism, ETH mainnet, Polygon, and Gnosis chain, contributing actively to many projects in the web3 space Since 2019.

First forum post in OP forum: My first interaction with the OP forum was precisely supporting the idea of a conflict committee, back in Oct 2022.

RFP # 2: (2023) I posted a proposal in the name of Gravity DAO, supporting the implementation of code of conduct enforcement solutions in the optimism collective, improving governance accessibility, and minimizing governance overhead from the foundation, which at that point was managing Code of conduct violations via token voting. Implementation of the solution by the end of Season 4.

Graviton training in Optimism playlist: Playlist from the live training we did in season 4 (August and Sept 2023) for the Optimism community, as part of the above-mentioned RFP. Here are the Slides used

Graviton free online course: Free online course about conflict management and trust creation, available in 5 languages.

Graviton POAPs: Certifications for multiple trainings in diverse communities, since 2020.

Member of the first Code of Conduct council via public nomination and token vote.

Season 5 Code of Conduct communication thread. Communication thread from past seasons CoC Council in Optimism.

- Links to proposed lead’s relevant work experience

I have experience leading and shaping groups, managing conflict individually and collectively, and working on intentionally developing trust in spaces. I think I am qualified to lead

  • Linkedin. Political Scientist, Mg. in Alternative Dispute Resolution,
  • Worked in Human Resources at 2 in Universities Colombia.
  • Stewarded the launch and commons upgrade of TEC with the implementation of Ostrom’s principles in its design. TEC’s bonding curve is now on Optimism.
  • Leading Gravity DAO as an organization that provides coordination solutions and continued education on trust creation and conflict management to Web3 communities.
  • Supporting the development of the Ethereum Community in Colombia (Ethcolombia X)

Council Charter for season 6:

  • Link to original Charter: Season 5 Charter
  • Link to internal procedures
  • The Season 6 Charter will need to be updated as described in this proposed operating budget, to account for the following changes in Scope:
    • The Charter of the Council will need to be updated in season 6 to match the rescoping of the council within Optimism’s collective structure.
    • The Code of Conduct Council will only oversee the Rules of Engagement. As such, the decisions of the Code of Conduct Council will no longer be subject to optimistic approval by governance
    • All members will be accountable to governance as they remain removable via the Representative Removal proposal type outlined in the Operating Manual
    • Improving the readability of public documents related to the code of conduct council and the processing of conflicts for simplicity and clarity.
    • Maintain private discussion channels where information around cases is strategically managed with relevant parties.

Board Operating Budget:


Proposed budget:
(4.000 OP for 5 council members and 6.000 OP for 1 lead) = 26.000 OP total per season.
Listening to feedback, this proposal is 29.000 OP lower in budget than the one defeated on cycle 23a

Main changes from the previous proposal:

  • There won’t be any subgroup of SupportNERDs assisting the activities of the Council.
  • There is a discount of 4.000 OP in the reward for each role, in comparison to the proposal presented initially.
  • We highlight the value of the work being offered, and why even when there has been a compromise in lowering rewards, this work shouldn’t be underrated or underrewarded.

Subcommittee 1: Code of Conduct Council

The community is reminded to report any harassment or discrimination and to stay vigilant against scams and phishing attempts. The Code of Conduct Council can facilitate communication with and between conflicting parties.

The Code of Conduct Council is available to facilitate discussions and provide feedback, and changes to the Code of Conduct and Rules of Engagement for transparency and coherence.

Violations can be reported using platform tools, processed by NERDs or govNERDs for users, or through specific forms for delegates or Citizens. Since the Rules of Engagement apply to anyone using Optimism-hosted platforms, there is no distinction between Token House and Citizens’ House - the CoCC would enforce the Rules of Engagement for everyone, regardless of House, with penalties ranging from warnings to potential permanent removal.

The relationship between the Council with SupportNERDs will be as two separate and independent groups. The supportNERDs being a contributor path that facilitates moderating content via platform monitoring, and the Code of Conduct Council taking over cases that may involve enforcement of sanctions, affect multiple parties, or require further discussion, interpretation, or proper spaces to be debated within internal management layers.

Number of Council Members = 5 (20.000 OP total) (+ 5.000 total increase from last Season)

(4.000 OP each)

Council members should be elected by the community via public nomination, and be present and available to process any case that arises in the community during the season. Individuals with this role must have experience and knowledge managing complexity in human groups, distinguishing for their ethical and professional behavior.

Rationale: Impact 6

  • Council members, with voice and vote to implement the rules of engagement and process conflicting cases in the community.
  • In season 5, there was a stipend of 3.000 OP per council member, the augment of the rewards is because the amount of work and specialty in this role is high and the incentive to participate actively in the community was low for the council members. The council would be primarily rewarded retroactively, so this is fair for the time and effort required to participate in the council during the whole season, avoiding incentives to conflict or bureaucracy.
  • All Council members should:
  • Process all Code of Conduct related reports 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.
  • Publish a summary of any enforcement decisions made during the Voting Cycle to the forum by the end of the review period of each voting cycle (Wednesday at 19:00 GMT.).
  • Participate in the distribution of loads in the team to support the lead in the synthesis, keeping track of internal work, the gathering of information, scheduling, organizing, and management of the council’s platforms for fast responses to the needs of the collective.
  • Facilitate and participate in private discussion channels and spaces with professional responsibility over sensitive topics managed in cases.

Council Lead = 1 (6.000 OP total) (+ 3.000 increase from last Season)

The council lead will be the author of this proposal, in the case it is successfully endorsed by delegate approval in the forum and subsequent governance vote.

Rationale: Middle ground between Impact 6 and Impact 7

  • The council lead will only vote when there is no majority in the council.
  • The lead has the additional responsibilities of stewarding the team through voting decisions and cycles, while communicating with the foundation, and all other governance efforts, councils, and commissions in Optimism. The lead has to comply with the deadlines for communicating decisions and recommendations from the cases observed to feedback and reflection instances. The leader has to keep updated internal documents, procedures, and platforms within the team.
  • In season 5, the lead was rewarded equally to the council members, still, the leader receives more load in comparison, and that is why this increase on the individual budget is proposed.
  • The Council Lead should:
  • Facilitate coordination of review and host regular Council meetings, which should occur at least once per Voting Cycle in which reports are filed. It is suggested that meeting minutes or summaries be made available to the community.
  • Exercise decision-making authority if the Council cannot come to a consensus on an administrative or operational matter (ie. act as a tiebreaker)
  • Become a point of contact for the foundation, commissions, councils, NERDs and all governance efforts in Optimism with the code of conduct council.

How should governance participants measure the Council’s impact, and ensure its execution on its Charter?

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.

Consistent with other reward allocations, all rewards will be subject to a KYC and claims flow process.

What Does This Mean for Delegates?

Please see the Code of Conduct Rescoping #2 before voting on this proposal.

Delegates will vote again for a Code of Conduct Council Operating Budget in Special Voting Cycle #23b. Approving a Code of Conduct Budget elects the proposal author as the Council Lead. If approved, delegates will vote to elect Council members in the next Voting Cycle.

If you do not wish to renew the Code of Conduct Council, do not approve any operating budget proposals.

If you like this proposal and you are a delegate, please express your approval or feedback in this thread by June 12th 2024 :slightly_smiling_face:


As we mentioned before, we recognize the importance of the work carried out by this body. That’s why we noted that the negative vote decision leans more towards budget issues rather than the council’s management itself.

We acknowledge and value the efforts made to refine the Code of Conduct and recognize that the budget reduction of 17,000 OP is significant, but we believe the total value of the operating budget remains high.

In concrete terms, this new budget represents a 111.11% increase compared to the approved budget of 18,000 OP for Season 5. Also it’s worth mentioning that the Foundation initially suggested a budget of 3,000 OP per Code of Conduct Council member and this proposal raises that number to 6,000 OP per member, which is a 100% increase.


I am for a code of conduct council as I believe in the additional value that it provides.

I do not however understand the logic behind the increase in operating budget vs last season. It seems to be pegged to Impact level 6 and 7 in the Collective Rewards Framework but in the collective rewards framework it also outlines that “the unique nature of the Code of Conduct Council requires a majority of retroactive rewards.”, which is a statement I tend to agree with.

Also something I do not understand: What is the logic behind having 5 council members? Would there potentially be a benefit to reducing to 3 just as an experiment?

1 Like

Thanks for the feedback on the proposal! It is still in draft mode and can be edited until this Wednesday. Will share some ideas: :+1:

  • Having 3 members on the council was at some point thought about while rescoping this proposal. Following with 5 seemed strategic to prioritize decentralization and facilitate multiple points of view in the decision-making process. I wouldn’t suggest modifying this number.

  • About the rewards structure:

    • There will be increased responsibilities: at the start of Season 5, the CoCC was competent to manage cases only on the Token House, while the foundation still managed the citizen’s house cases. Besides, the CoCC decisions had to be voted on within voting cycles. Now, the scope of the council would be for the whole community, and the enforcement wouldn’t need to go through voting. Still, conflicts can extend beyond platform management and require more than a “yes” or “no” approach.
  • There will be an increase in decentralization: the foundation created the Code of Conduct Council discussion channels with a decommissioned date of June 19th, 2024. This means that if renewed now, the Code of Conduct Council will be even more autonomous in managing its private communication.
  • The CoCC was an experiment during season 5: rewards were thought of as trying to test work that hadn’t been done. After doing it for one season, the council member’s feedback was that the highly specialized skills and high context needed for this role deserved higher rewards, as the incentive to participate actively in the community was low. The one-time payment at the end of the season is thought to not condition this work to how many times it is needed but to the full availability for any contingency.

  • The preventive scope included in this proposal: “A stitch in time saves nine” The intake process as designed right now, makes cases only visible to the council when they are big and hard to manage. It is proposed to increase the number of small feedback loops to support the council in identifying and working on cases preventively. It is included in the proposed work to improve the accessibility to the council for any member and proactive work towards a positive implementation of the values and culture of the collective.

I’m trying to shine a light on the value and impact that is being proposed, to put into perspective the rewards requested. Still, as part of going back and forth in this proposal and compromising to find a middle ground and receive support, I will be happy to edit the draft to set the rewards like this:

– Edit on June 10th :slight_smile:

Council members: 5.000 OP (5)
Proposed Leader: 7.000 OP (1)
Total budget (32.000 OP)


Thanks @juankbell for leading all the efforts to draw attention to the value and impact COCC will bring to the Optimism ecosystem.

Code of Conduct has grown in scope beyond just resolution management since it took stage in Web3 and will play a important role in the culture that represents Optimism to grow in a decentralized and organized way and create value and impact.

Human beings have many shades of behavior which needs management through rules and beyond. The ability to navigate in the VUCA - Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous environment in Web3 the COCC will bring great value and impact.

1 Like

We are in agreement with @seedlatam. GFX believes this council should exist, but are also sensitive to rapid budget increases. The Code of Conduct Council, in our eyes, is meant to be a group of reliable participants on retainer — standing ready for when they are needed.

We would support a modest increase over the previous budget. Alternatively, we would support authorizing a larger budget, but only paying on a per-hour basis instead of a salary basis. This would ensure members are paid for the time required of them, but without overpaying for what is intended to be a part time position.

We are also open to other suggestions, if anyone has them.


This re-scoped CoCC budget would need 4 delegate approvals to move on to a vote during Special Voting Cycle #23b (Starts 6/13/2024), and since there seems to be a general feeling of “we find this council valuable but I still don’t like the budget”…

I have setup a call for tomorrow where @juankbell will be joining us to discuss.

CoCC Operating Budget Discussion - Wednesday, June 12th @3:30pm UTC.

cc-ing everyone who I have seen involved in the discussion but all delegates welcome to attend! @GFXlabs @seedlatam @kaereste @PGov @web3magnetic @Gonna.eth @Griff @brichis


Thanks @juankbell for continuously hearing feedback and modifying the proposal.

We agree with @seedlatam and @GFXlabs and consider updated increases are still on a high side, but like the idea GFX suggested that we set them as higher limits and calculate compensations per actual work needed in Season 6.

Once the idea above or a reasonable alternative is incorporated, we are ready to approve the proposal.


I would suggest a fixed reward amount slightly higher than last seasons budget (given the additional duties described below by @juankbell) then any additional impact the CoCC has should be rewarded via Retro Funding.

cc. @GFXlabs @Tane

1 Like

I’m very excited about having this meeting today! at 3:30 PM UTC

These are some reasons why I would like to continue marketing the proposal as is

  • It is better for this Council’s members not to be incentivized by the visibility of conflicts.

A work well done would be one where the external perception is that few conflicts are happening in the community, while there is a lot of management and transformation happening internally. I think the stimulus needs to be properly aligned and the council members shouldn’t receive additional rewards but a fixed payment, which has been now lowered twice, even below the rewards framework.

  • The perceived value of this work is different between the Foundation and the Community.

Since the start season 4, the foundation was looking for ways to delegate the enforcement of the code of conduct, In season 5, The Council was authorized by the foundation for an initial pilot period. And now for season 6 the Council needs to to through governance, this is a continuation of a work that has been in development over the past 2 seasons. One of the goals of the foundation is to Steward the early evolution of collective governance and this is an effort toward progressive decentralization. The rewards given by the foundation in season 4 were high, the rewards for the council in season 5 were low because of the experimental nature of the council shaping something that hadn’t been done before, and now for season 6, even when the rewards framework recognizes the need of specialized skills and high context (impact 7), the amount of responsibility for this role is being underlooked within delegates.

1 Like

Can I suggest:
Council members: 5.000 OP (3)
Proposed Leader: 7.000 OP (1)
Total budget (22.000 OP)

Adding 1 more member looks like the right approach and strongly reduces the budget to an acceptable number for me. 6 members sounds like an overkill.


Thanks to everyone who has joined this discussion! As a result of the latest conversations, I’m making this final edit hoping to have 4 delegate approvals by today, at 19:00 GMT. (In 3 hours xD) and be included in voting cycle 23b.

I’m trying to show that even when I desire better compensation for this role, I think this is an important thing that shouldn’t be left out for season 6 (and future seasons). I’m intrinsically motivated to assume this responsibility and would love to receive the trust of delegates for the impact that can be created and the good work that can be done.

– Edit on June 12th :slight_smile:

Council members: 4.000 OP (5)
Proposed lead: 6.000 OP (1)
Total budget: (26.000 OP)

  • No rewards related to the Council’s activities are to be included in Retroactive Funding Rounds for the participants or the proposed lead.

  • To be noted: If this proposal doesn’t pass on voting cycle 23b, no further proposals on this subject could be included before starting season 6.


I am an Optimism delegate with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.


I am an Optimism delegate with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.


I am one of the Synthetix Ambassadors, and an Optimism Badgeholder. I am an Optimism delegate [Delegate Commitments - #65 by mastermojo ] with sufficient voting power, and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.


I am an Optimism delegate with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.

Note: I think the proposal has been sufficiently updated to reflect enough delegate feedback that it deserves another vote.

1 Like

I’m an Optimism delegate with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.

1 Like

The SEED Latam delegation, as we have communicated here, with @Joxes being an Optimism delegate with sufficient voting power we believe this proposal is ready to move towards a vote.

Thank you for today’s call. We believe this proposed budget is very reasonable:


I’m an Optimism delegate with sufficient voting power and I believe this proposal is ready to move to a vote.

In the discussion we had with @juankbell, we suggested lowering the ask amount to the original CoCC budget from Season 5 or with a slight increase. While an increase of +33% for a member and +100% for a leader is more than we were looking for, given the time constraints of the voting process, we are willing to agree to the higher ask amount. We are keeping our fingers crossed for the passage of the amended CoCC budget and will be following its activities closely in Season 6.


It is really exciting to see the community self-organize to facilitate a discussion resulting in changes to an original proposal draft (as well as to see the community closely analyzing budget proposals.)