We need to talk about undisclosed financial interests

[lee0007]

Some good learning here. This conversation raises some important points for clarification. Perhaps we could routinely discuss, clarify and build our shared understanding of the Code of Conduct.

I’d like to better understand the process and policy here and clarify responsibility/accountability because the learning here applies as much to me as to other delegates…

I’m highlighting what I understand may be indicated or applicable here in terms of Code of Conduct Self Dealing and Accountability I am adding italics where the application is still unclear to me or appears to contradict other terms.

Presuppositions

Does this seem a fair basis for shared understanding?

• Undoubtedly many awesome public goods projects exist in this space thanks to the #GivethGalaxy of which @Griff is a leading light. Safe to assume well-meaning intent
• Effective sale recent policy updates do not apply retroactively AND now apply to any future OP exchange. No exchange that I am yet aware of @Grif can you clarify?.
• Delegates have a responsibility to uphold the Code of Conduct which prescribes mandatory obligations and enforcement response, IF an issue is reported AND a breach is proven

Application of the Code of Conduct

@system

No Self Dealing

Mandatory (Violation 10): Optimists must avoid conflicts of interest where possible and mitigate their impact when not possible. We recommend over-communicating and disclosing potential conflicts of interest even when they do not warrant abstaining from a vote.

• 10a. Any actual or reasonably anticipated conflicts of interest must be disclosed in writing and prominently displayed ahead of any voting (i.e. when submitting delegate commitments, when running for an elected position, when making public recommendations, etc.).
• 10b. Any offer for external compensation relating to delegation or external compensation relating to the Optimism Protocol must be promptly disclosed.
• 10c. Delegates are prohibited from approving and voting on their own proposals. Delegates may not vote for their own candidacy in an election. In the case of approval/ranked-choice votes, delegates may vote for themselves, so long as they also cast votes for the remaining elected positions…
• 10d. Badge holders should not vote for organizations where they expect any portion of funds to flow to them or any projects they are affiliated with. At a minimum, badge holders must disclose any project they have a meaningful financial or reputational stake in.

@system

Grant recipients:

• Mandatory (Violation 6): Must abide by the grant policies, outlined here
• Mandatory (Violation 7): Must execute the grant in accordance with what is outlined in the approved grant proposal. Grant recipients that wish to change the use of the grant from what is outlined in the proposal must submit a new proposal requesting approval for the change. To do so, they must follow the grants process in place at the time. If the change is not approved, the recipient must execute the grant as outlined in the original proposal or return the portion of grant funding affected by the unapproved change.

A couple of key points seem clear, at first

• Delegates must provide 1) written Conflict of Interest (COI) disclosure 2) ahead of voting
• Delegates are prohibited from 1) approving and 2) voting on their own proposals
• Funding purposes must be stated OR a new proposal submitted for approval
• Funding recipients must execute the grant as outlined in the original proposal, seek approval for changes or return funding affected by the unapproved distribution

AND then there’s confusion about how we interpret some conflicting terms. The difference between narrow or broad interpretation has a significant impact

• Prohibited from approving and voting on own proposals BUT 1) where do we draw the line on ‘own proposal’
• Prohibited from approving and voting on own proposals YET 2) with some exception where approval voting specified in relation to elections? Yet approval voting is also specified and the method applied for Collective Intents
• Where Delegates are also Badgeholders, does this clause apply to Token House or RPGF only?
• COI does not warrant abstaining from a vote. Why? When?

Goverance Process Clarification Request

@lavande can you clarify, please

For the proposals where Griff is a party as any of

1. a listed advisor &/or
2. where funding was expected to exist &/or
3. where GaaS agreement was expected to exist

1.1 Delegate Approval

1.1.1 Was Griff’s stated support material to any proposal advancing to vote?. Specifically where his vote counted as one of only four delegate approvals? Y/N
1.1.2 Who is accountable (sole or joint duty of care) for correctly identifying eligible proposals and moving them to the Agora vote?
1.1.3 With the hope that any OP holder can openly express support for ANY proposals, including our own. Is it simply the use of the explicit delegate approval format that crosses the line from support to approval, and are there mitigating factors e.g seeking clarification?
1.1.4 IF a proposal was incorrectly moved to vote, should that nullify the results of the entire vote and a new vote be established?
1.1.5 What enforcement action applies if there is this type of breach?

1.2 Delegate Voting
Can you clarify the Foundation’s intent given

1.2.1 Delegate approval and voting are ‘prohibited’ closely followed by exception (s)
1.2.2 Delegate badge holder COI is very broad, should this apply to the person or to the House?
1.2.3 Did Grif vote on proposals he was a party to? And is this an intended exclusion due to the voting format?
1.2.4 What enforcement action applies if there is this type of breach?

1.3 Grant Distribution
Given the disclosure of potential COI is not “prior to voting”

1.3.1 In this case is a new proposal a remedy to approve GaaS
1.3.2 Can a new proposal follow voting, to seek transparency and approval for GaaS.and which category of proposal would this be?
1.3.3 Does financial operational support raised here constitute “external compensation”
1.3.4 Does disclosure of these agreements prior to OP exchange meet the Foundation’s expectations/requirements for disclosure