There are a few problems here:
- I’m not sure where
10d.can actually be found, the closest item in the Code of Conduct is actually2d.. - The language surrounding
10dor2dis quite clear, and yes @lightclient did (whether intentionally or not) violate that clause. - It’s extremely unclear what the actual process for violations are, as outlined in the Code of Conduct, and thus I believe this needs to be dramatically reviewed, and re-written.
Focussing on #3
In the Code of Conduct, at the top of the page, clearly stated that:
The page then continues to state a series of violations, and steps for how these things are enforced. It honestly reads very poorly, and I could argue that Accountability and No Self-Dealing should be enforced under the Enforcement table found within the Code of Conduct, because it’s not explained what a Severe Violation actually is.
Technically speaking, if we’re to follow the way @lightclient was treated, under No Self-Dealing: 2a if you did not disclose any potential conflicts of interest prior to voting, you should be removed as a badge holder.
After taking a very quick glance through the RetroPGF forum, very few people actually fully disclosed COIs. Especially since a COI is so loosely defined, advisors, and board members should be held to the same level of accountability that founders/employees/contributors/contractors/consultants/etc are held to when disclosing a COI.
The point I’m trying to make, is these pages are extremely messy, need to be overhauled and moved to something more permanent (eg: gitbook, github docs, idc), and not the OP forums where they contain 50 link backs to several pages that are constantly updating.