The intent of this proposal is to define and formally recognize a Code of Conduct that describes a shared set of expectations for the nature of the interaction between all DAO participants. In addition, this proposal also introduces a set of enforcement guidelines used to address violations of the Code of Conduct and delegates to the Moderation Workstream authority to enforce the Code of Conduct as defined.
The success of the ShapeShift DAO is directly dependent on the ability of its members to collaborate effectively via online communication channels. To the aim of maximizing productivity at the DAO, it is reasonable to expect that the interactions between community members are of consistently high quality, but what exactly does “high-quality” mean in this context, and who, if anyone at the DAO, has the authority to curate our discussions? Furthermore, what actions may that trusted party take in situations where some violation of the understood standard of interaction is believed to have occurred? Without clear definitions for the above proposed and agreed upon by the community, no such action can definitely be taken, and concerns about potential detriments to organizational productivity as a result of unclearly defined community expectations are reasonable. To address these concerns, this proposal is introduced with the aim of establishing a formally-defined Code of Conduct, a set of enforcement guidelines to fairly address violations of the Code of Conduct, and formally delegating authority to enforce the Code of Conduct to the Moderation Workstream.
There currently exists some ambiguity about the role of the Moderation Workstream in resolving conflicts between DAO participants and the actions that the Moderation Workstream may take during the resolution process. SCP-39 established the Moderation Workstream and provided a definition of its mission and success metrics, but is somewhat ambiguous about its intended role in addressing conflicts between community members and does not clearly define a process for doing so. A Forum Code of Conduct was posted previously but has not been formally adopted by the community through governance. Reasonably, DAO participants cannot at the current time be entirely certain about what constitutes a violation of the Code of Conduct, whether the current Code of Conduct may be considered as a binding agreement amongst DAO participants, and whether or not the Moderation Workstream has the authority to enforce the provisions of the Code of Conduct as written.
The updated Code of Conduct is defined as follows:
We as members, contributors, and leaders pledge to make participation in our community a harassment-free experience for everyone We pledge to act and interact in ways that contribute to an open, welcoming, diverse, inclusive, and healthy community.
- Examples of behavior that contributes to a positive environment for our community include:
Demonstrating empathy and kindness toward other people
- Being respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences
- Giving and gracefully accepting constructive feedback
- Accepting responsibility and apologizing to those affected by our mistakes, and learning from the experience
- Focusing on what is best not just for us as individuals, but for the overall community
- Examples of unacceptable behavior include:
- Trolling, insulting or derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
- Public or private harassment
- Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or email address, without their explicit permission
- Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting
Moderators are responsible for clarifying and enforcing our standards of acceptable behavior and will take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to any behavior that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful. Moderators have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject comments, commits, code, edits, issues, and other contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, and will communicate reasons for moderation decisions when appropriate. ## Scope This Code of Conduct applies within all community spaces and also applies when an individual is officially representing the community in public spaces. Examples of representing our community include using an official e-mail address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event.
Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be reported to the Moderation Workstream responsible for enforcement at email@example.com, Discord - Tag Modsquad, Telegram - Giantkin or via the Anonymous Feedback Submission Form. All complaints will be reviewed and investigated fairly. The Moderation Workstream has the authority to use any tools available to them to enforce the Code of Conduct. If it is ever unclear whether or not a community member has violated the code or what the appropriate enforcement steps should be, the Moderation Workstream is welcome to hold a vote or discussion with other community members to help inform their decision. Ultimately the community of FOX Token holders has final say, and any decision made by the Moderation Workstream, as well as changes to this code or enforcement process, can be changed via governance. All Moderators are obligated to respect the privacy and security of the reporter of any incident.
Moderators will follow these Community Impact Guidelines in determining the consequences for any action they deem in violation of this Code of Conduct: ALL Enforcements are on a case-by-case basis and at the sole discretion of the Moderation Workstream.
Flagged items can be hidden/deleted until review.
Community Impact: A violation through a single incident or series of actions.
Consequence: A warning with consequences for continued behavior. Optionally, moderation may require that the community member to whom a warning was issued cease interaction with the other community member(s) involved, including unsolicited interaction with those enforcing the Code of Conduct, for a specified period of time. This includes avoiding interactions in community spaces as well as external channels like social media. Violating these terms may lead to a temporary or permanent ban. ** the intent of a warning is to inform the community member that he/she has engaged in repeated violations of the code of conduct, and subsequent violations may result at any time in either a temporary or permanent ban, depending on the severity of the violation.
3.) Temporary Ban (as possible)
Community Impact: A serious violation of community standards, including sustained inappropriate behavior.
Consequence: A temporary ban from any sort of interaction or public communication with the community for a specified period of time. No public or private interaction with the people involved, including unsolicited interaction with those enforcing the Code of Conduct, is allowed during this period. Violating these terms may lead to a permanent ban.
4.) Permanent Ban
Community Impact: Demonstrating a pattern of violation of community standards, including sustained inappropriate behavior, harassment of an individual, or aggression toward or disparagement of classes of individuals.
Consequence: A permanent ban from any sort of public interaction within the community.
Appealing a ban or asking for a review of moderation actions can be done by contacting [giantkin(at)giantkin.com], Discord - Tag Modsquad, Telegram - Giantkin or via the https://bit.ly/QuestionsAndFeedback Form Forum - Giantkin Alternatively, any decision made by the Moderation Workstream can be appealed via governance This Code of Conduct is adapted from the [Contributor Covenant][homepage], version 2.1, available at [Contributor Covenant:][v2.1]. Community Impact Guidelines were inspired by [Mozilla’s code of conduct enforcement ladder][Mozilla CoC]. For answers to common questions about this code of conduct, see the FAQ at [Contributor Covenant: Frequently Asked Questions about Contributor Covenant][FAQ]. Translations are available at [Contributor Covenant: Contributor Covenant Translations][translations]. [homepage]: https://www.contributor-covenant.org [v2.1]: Contributor Covenant: [Mozilla CoC]: GitHub - mozilla/inclusion: Our repository for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion work at Mozilla [FAQ]: Contributor Covenant: Frequently Asked Questions about Contributor Covenant [translations]: Contributor Covenant: Contributor Covenant Translations
Ratifying a code of conduct will provide an objective set of standards that may be used to evaluate the appropriateness of discourse at the DAO. Publishing a document that can be referenced by all which explains in clear language the set of mutual expectations between community members allows all DAO participants to properly orient themselves prior to interacting with the community and for conflicts that may arise between community members to be formally and fairly adjudicated. With the terms defined in the Code of Conduct requiring buy-in from the community through governance, it can reasonably be expected that mutual adherence to the defined terms will ensure that the portion of experience at the DAO related to interaction with other community members will be of consistently high quality. The enforcement policy defined above contains a multi-stage process for addressing violations of the Code of Conduct, which if properly interpreted, ensures that content or DAO participants are only removed in cases where repeated violations have occurred and fair warning has been given by the Moderation Workstream ahead of time.
The Code of Conduct defined above depends fundamentally on a shared understanding of subjective terms such as “conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate” or “unacceptable behavior.” It is stated as part of this proposal that the responsibility to enforce the Code of Conduct is delegated exclusively to the Moderation Workstream. It is therefore critical that the DAO be able to trust the judgment of a small number of individuals granted authority to enforce the Code above, and that enforcement of the Code of Conduct is carried out appropriately and equally. On the one hand, should the Moderation Workstream be insufficiently attentive to violations of the Code of Conduct, the social/professional environment at the DAO may degrade and as a result become unattractive to both current and future contributors. On the other hand, should the Moderation Workstream be overly aggressive in its application of the enforcement guidelines outlined above, should its understanding of the subjective terms defined in the Code of Conduct depart significantly from that held by the DAO participants in majority, or should it fail to apply the enforcement guidelines to all DAO members fairly and equally, then the DAO incurs a risk of creating an environment that is intolerant to strong differences in opinion, centralizing influence on the governance process, and undermining the power of collective decision-making through free and open public discourse. This is particularly relevant when considering the expressions of dissenting opinions about ideas or individuals at the DAO, which will necessarily be negative in nature.