Profile of CoCCouncil in Optimism
Posts by CoCCouncil
-
Code of Conduct Council Communication Thread
by CoCCouncil - No Role
Posted on: May 22, 2024, 7:54 p.m.
Content: Hello, it was just resent, it could be in the spam folder.
Likes: 1
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
Code of Conduct Council Communication Thread
by CoCCouncil - No Role
Posted on: May 21, 2024, 5:06 p.m.
Content: Hello!
We have responded about this Report in an email dated Wed, Apr 17 , please let us know if it was correctly received.
Likes: 0
Replies: 0
No likes yet.
No replies yet.
-
Code of Conduct Council - Retrospective Season 5
by CoCCouncil - No Role
Posted on: May 6, 2024, 3:54 p.m.
Content: Retrospective - Season 5 First of all, thank you for allowing the members of this Council for Season 5 to be part of the Collective. We have learned a lot and worked in favor of the participants of the Collective. We have conducted this Retrospective internally and want to share some important points with all of you. Please note that in some responses, there are various conclusions. We believe that seeing the different perspectives of the members is more important than reaching a consensus when submitting a Retrospective. 1 . What is your assessment of any benchmark milestones and/or impact KPIs that were set in your Budget Proposal or Charter at the start of the Season? Have you made progress towards, or achieved, these milestones or KPIs? We believe we have achieved progress based on our mandate, there has been less governance overhead in the management of conflicts by the Foundation, and less voting around the Code of Conduct sanctions, contributing to these Goals, by replacing the Foundation in the processing of reported Code of Conduct Violations and eliminating enforcement responsibilities for Token House delegates by entrusting the Code of Conduct Council to process disputes. To create accountability for the Code of Conduct Council, the Token House may veto enforcement actions at any time Generally, the introduction of Optimistic Enforcement of actions alone has already led to fewer votes needed from the Token House on these matters, we think we were effective at these goals. While the CoCC wasn’t perfect, we successfully achieved these goals by soaking up governance overhead that would have otherwise fallen on the token. Our small group size (as opposed to the large Token House) meant we could dedicate more time and attention to each case than the Token House could, which would have ideally led to more optimal outcomes for the cases. Finally, the fact the CoCC Members were drawn from rank-and-file members of the Optimism Community, increased the decentralization of Optimism Governance and minimized the need of the Foundation to remain in control. 2 . Impact assessment - how well did your team’s outputs support the Intent they were authorized under? All reports were discussed, with different perspectives being given for each case from members. The biggest output I am impressed with the Council has been the communications on the thread, with many members being able to handle publicly very sensitive threads. We managed cases that were a load on the Foundation and the community, taking off weight to specific areas and taking care of the public image of the collective. Managing conflict is one of those areas whose impact is invisible, and trying to measure it is paradoxical. It’s hard to reach a consensus in dicotomic situations and there will be a certain amount of descent to decisions we make. If we want to have conflict, to prove our capacity to manage it, we are incentivizing the first unwanted premise. If there are a few conflicts, we may think the group is not needed. It’s good that the conflict management offices are prepared for any emergency, and also that there are moments without conflict that prevention. I think it’s less important to discuss the team’s outputs, and more important to focus on the indirect benefit to the Optimism Collective that the CoCC provided. Our inner workings and outputs ultimately minimized governance overhead for the Token House, increased decentralization of the Collective, and led to better outcomes among disputes. Our group activities and communication across Optimism’s online platform and community events appeared to reduce the frequency of disputes, reduce incivility on the online platforms, and provide a support mechanism to community members who felt they had been wronged or generally unsafe in the community; i.e. We were always there if people needed us, and it appeared as if many in the community knew this. 3 . What changes would you make to the Internal Operating Procedures (IOP’s)? Incentivizing people in the community to be closer to the COCC. We should be able to know about conflicts when they are small. If we are not seen close to the community, it will be harder to access cases and we’ll only perceive them when they are big. I think an important goal is to keep the IOPs simple, clear, and easy to understand and adhere to. With this as a goal, I am pleased that the CoCC did indeed dedicate significant time and energy to creating and/or refining the IOPs, while always seeking feedback from the community and the Foundation. 4 . Suggested adjustments to the Charter. Open the forms to not only strong Code of Conduct violations but also tearings of the social fabric, allowing feedback loops and notification of issues when they are small as fast as possible. Leading to not only Yes or No decisions, but to transforming polarities into informed dialogue spaces. A change that I’ve previously discussed, is that Reports should be received, processed, and reported on with 2 consecutive Voting Cycles, and not only one (i.e. the same) Voting Cycle. I believe this change would improve decision-making by the CoCC reduce pressures on CoCC Members and minimize conflicts among CoCC Members. Giving more space for innovation within the CoCC to innovations, for example, for this initial Season we started exploring within the Council the option to use Attestations within our decisions and roles, this was something that wasn´t part of the Charter, but I believe adding within the Charter a research or investigative area that includes an open mandate to innovate as Council would be seen by the members as an open playground. 5 . What improvements to the team’s mandate would you suggest for next Season? If you don’t believe the team’s operations should continue next Season, please explain why here. I feel that ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) and report voting could be parallelized. The Council’s role in voting on behalf of the Token House cannot be assumed by any other entity, however, with additional resources we could expand and potentially onboard a more comprehensive method for resolutions beyond the council members themselves. I think we should continue next season, and be given support to pivot cases to facilitation of ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution). I think this experiment was fun and beneficial to the community and the participants of the COCC (Code of Conduct Council). In my opinion, for next season we can continue polishing and iterating based on what was built to support the community and the foundation in the better identification and processing of code of conduct violations and overall management of conflicts in the Optimism ecosystem. I think there can be two parallel streams to handle Reports. While the CoCC should remain the first ‘port-of-call’ or ‘first responder’ for all Reports, the CoCC should have the option to off-ramp selected cases to an external ADR body or process. The external ADR provider could provide increased expertise and dedicated time and staff for the longer term (supported or created by adequate funding) that could better handle these embedded, but recoverable disputes, in comparison to the direct CoCC. Cases that are not off-ramped to ADR would remain the responsibility of the CoCC, and the CoCC could increase the specialization, efficiency, and effectiveness in investigating, processing, adjudicating, and reporting on cases that lean more to obvious abuse, infractions, or breaches, as opposed to the human, personality or political disputes that are more likely breakdowns in the social fabric of the community but can still be recovered (i.e. these cases are handled by the ADR body). The mandate of the CoCC is of high importance to the Collective because due process is required when members of the Token House are subject to any kind of sanction, especially when this sanction involves not only deleting a post but also imposing higher sanctions such as limiting their ability to participate in the Forum. Potentially, this could be the last post from the members who are part of this initial experiment. We have forged bonds that we know will always be there among us. We thank you immensely once again for this opportunity. Regards :heart_decoration:, @gene @Axel_T @Juanbug_PGov @Oxytocin @juankbell @teresacd
Likes: 7
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
Code of Conduct Council - Retrospective Season 5
by CoCCouncil - No Role
Posted on: May 6, 2024, 11:54 a.m.
Content: Retrospective - Season 5
First of all, thank you for allowing the members of this Council for Season 5 to be part of the Collective. We have learned a lot and worked in favor of the participants of the Collective. We have conducted this Retrospective internally and want to share some important points with all of you.
Please note that in some responses, there are various conclusions. We believe that seeing the different perspectives of the members is more important than reaching a consensus when submitting a Retrospective.
1 . What is your assessment of any benchmark milestones and/or impact KPIs that were set in your Budget Proposal or Charter at the start of the Season? Have you made progress towards, or achieved, these milestones or KPIs?
We believe we have achieved progress based on our mandate, there has been less governance overhead in the management of conflicts by the Foundation, and less voting around the Code of Conduct sanctions, contributing to these Goals 2 , by replacing the Foundation in the processing of reported Code of Conduct Violations and eliminating enforcement responsibilities for Token House delegates by entrusting the Code of Conduct Council to process disputes. To create accountability for the Code of Conduct Council, the Token House may veto enforcement actions at any time
Generally, the introduction of Optimistic Enforcement of actions alone has already led to fewer votes needed from the Token House on these matters, we think we were effective at these goals.
While the CoCC wasn’t perfect, we successfully achieved these goals by soaking up governance overhead that would have otherwise fallen on the token. Our small group size (as opposed to the large Token House) meant we could dedicate more time and attention to each case than the Token House could, which would have ideally led to more optimal outcomes for the cases. Finally, the fact the CoCC Members were drawn from rank-and-file members of the Optimism Community, increased the decentralization of Optimism Governance and minimized the need of the Foundation to remain in control.
2 . Impact assessment - how well did your team’s outputs support the Intent they were authorized under?
All reports were discussed, with different perspectives being given for each case from members. The biggest output I am impressed with the Council has been the communications on the thread, with many members being able to handle publicly very sensitive threads.
We managed cases that were a load on the Foundation and the community, taking off weight to specific areas and taking care of the public image of the collective. Managing conflict is one of those areas whose impact is invisible, and trying to measure it is paradoxical. It’s hard to reach a consensus in dicotomic situations and there will be a certain amount of descent to decisions we make. If we want to have conflict, to prove our capacity to manage it, we are incentivizing the first unwanted premise. If there are a few conflicts, we may think the group is not needed. It’s good that the conflict management offices are prepared for any emergency, and also that there are moments without conflict that prevention.
I think it’s less important to discuss the team’s outputs, and more important to focus on the indirect benefit to the Optimism Collective that the CoCC provided. Our inner workings and outputs ultimately minimized governance overhead for the Token House, increased decentralization of the Collective, and led to better outcomes among disputes. Our group activities and communication across Optimism’s online platform and community events appeared to reduce the frequency of disputes, reduce incivility on the online platforms, and provide a support mechanism to community members who felt they had been wronged or generally unsafe in the community; i.e. We were always there if people needed us, and it appeared as if many in the community knew this.
3 . What changes would you make to the Internal Operating Procedures (IOP’s)?
Incentivizing people in the community to be closer to the COCC. We should be able to know about conflicts when they are small. If we are not seen close to the community, it will be harder to access cases and we’ll only perceive them when they are big.
I think an important goal is to keep the IOPs simple, clear, and easy to understand and adhere to. With this as a goal, I am pleased that the CoCC did indeed dedicate significant time and energy to creating and/or refining the IOPs, while always seeking feedback from the community and the Foundation.
4 . Suggested adjustments to the Charter.
Open the forms to not only strong Code of Conduct violations but also tearings of the social fabric, allowing feedback loops and notification of issues when they are small as fast as possible. Leading to not only Yes or No decisions, but to transforming polarities into informed dialogue spaces.
A change that I’ve previously discussed, is that Reports should be received, processed, and reported on with 2 consecutive Voting Cycles, and not only one (i.e. the same) Voting Cycle. I believe this change would improve decision-making by the CoCC reduce pressures on CoCC Members and minimize conflicts among CoCC Members.
Giving more space for innovation within the CoCC to innovations, for example, for this initial Season we started exploring within the Council the option to use Attestations within our decisions and roles, this was something that wasn´t part of the Charter, but I believe adding within the Charter a research or investigative area that includes an open mandate to innovate as Council would be seen by the members as an open playground. I also believe that working more closely with other members of the community generates a broader impact, for example, in future mandates, the CoCC can work more closely in experimenting under Missions or similar. Cross-collaboration is key, for the Attestations a member of the community, @LauNaMu, helped us understand more about Attestations and how these could be implemented within the Council in favor of the Collective. Something that also was in our conversations, was to see how could the CoCC could work together with other Protocols, such as Arbitrum, for issues that expand our borders, and are out of our scope, but still relevant to the Collective.
5 . What improvements to the team’s mandate would you suggest for next Season? If you don’t believe the team’s operations should continue next Season, please explain why here.
I feel that ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) and report voting could be parallelized. The Council’s role in voting on behalf of the Token House cannot be assumed by any other entity, however, with additional resources we could expand and potentially onboard a more comprehensive method for resolutions beyond the council members themselves.
I think we should continue next season, and be given support to pivot cases to facilitation of ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution). I think this experiment was fun and beneficial to the community and the participants of the COCC (Code of Conduct Council). In my opinion, for next season we can continue polishing and iterating based on what was built to support the community and the foundation in the better identification and processing of code of conduct violations and overall management of conflicts in the Optimism ecosystem.
I think there can be two parallel streams to handle Reports. While the CoCC should remain the first ‘port-of-call’ or ‘first responder’ for all Reports, the CoCC should have the option to off-ramp selected cases to an external ADR body or process. The external ADR provider could provide increased expertise and dedicated time and staff for the longer term (supported or created by adequate funding) that could better handle these embedded, but recoverable disputes, in comparison to the direct CoCC. Cases that are not off-ramped to ADR would remain the responsibility of the CoCC, and the CoCC could increase the specialization, efficiency, and effectiveness in investigating, processing, adjudicating, and reporting on cases that lean more to obvious abuse, infractions, or breaches, as opposed to the human, personality or political disputes that are more likely breakdowns in the social fabric of the community but can still be recovered (i.e. these cases are handled by the ADR body).
The mandate of the CoCC is of high importance to the Collective because due process is required when members of the Token House are subject to any kind of sanction, especially when this sanction involves not only deleting a post but also imposing higher sanctions such as limiting their ability to participate in the Forum.
Potentially, this could be the last post from the members who are part of this initial experiment. We have forged bonds that we know will always be there among us. We thank you immensely once again for this opportunity.
Regards :heart_decoration:,
@gene @Axel_T @Juanbug_PGov @Oxytocin @juankbell @teresacd
Likes: 15
Replies: 0
Likers:
Liliop.eth,
Bunnic,
Axel_T,
maintainer.eth,
teresacd,
eugenia,
lavande,
Juanbug_PGov,
juankbell,
LauNaMu,
web3magnetic,
gene,
SolarPunk-Jedi,
AjpuMonica,
fujiar
No replies yet.
-
Code of Conduct Council - Retrospective Season 5
by CoCCouncil - No Role
Posted on: May 6, 2024, 11:54 a.m.
Content: Retrospective - Season 5
First of all, thank you for allowing the members of this Council for Season 5 to be part of the Collective. We have learned a lot and worked in favor of the participants of the Collective. We have conducted this Retrospective internally and want to share some important points with all of you.
Please note that in some responses, there are various conclusions. We believe that seeing the different perspectives of the members is more important than reaching a consensus when submitting a Retrospective.
1 . What is your assessment of any benchmark milestones and/or impact KPIs that were set in your Budget Proposal or Charter at the start of the Season? Have you made progress towards, or achieved, these milestones or KPIs?
We believe we have achieved progress based on our mandate, there has been less governance overhead in the management of conflicts by the Foundation, and less voting around the Code of Conduct sanctions, contributing to these Goals, by replacing the Foundation in the processing of reported Code of Conduct Violations and eliminating enforcement responsibilities for Token House delegates by entrusting the Code of Conduct Council to process disputes. To create accountability for the Code of Conduct Council, the Token House may veto enforcement actions at any time
Generally, the introduction of Optimistic Enforcement of actions alone has already led to fewer votes needed from the Token House on these matters, we think we were effective at these goals.
While the CoCC wasn’t perfect, we successfully achieved these goals by soaking up governance overhead that would have otherwise fallen on the token. Our small group size (as opposed to the large Token House) meant we could dedicate more time and attention to each case than the Token House could, which would have ideally led to more optimal outcomes for the cases. Finally, the fact the CoCC Members were drawn from rank-and-file members of the Optimism Community, increased the decentralization of Optimism Governance and minimized the need of the Foundation to remain in control.
2 . Impact assessment - how well did your team’s outputs support the Intent they were authorized under?
All reports were discussed, with different perspectives being given for each case from members. The biggest output I am impressed with the Council has been the communications on the thread, with many members being able to handle publicly very sensitive threads.
We managed cases that were a load on the Foundation and the community, taking off weight to specific areas and taking care of the public image of the collective. Managing conflict is one of those areas whose impact is invisible, and trying to measure it is paradoxical. It’s hard to reach a consensus in dicotomic situations and there will be a certain amount of descent to decisions we make. If we want to have conflict, to prove our capacity to manage it, we are incentivizing the first unwanted premise. If there are a few conflicts, we may think the group is not needed. It’s good that the conflict management offices are prepared for any emergency, and also that there are moments without conflict that prevention.
I think it’s less important to discuss the team’s outputs, and more important to focus on the indirect benefit to the Optimism Collective that the CoCC provided. Our inner workings and outputs ultimately minimized governance overhead for the Token House, increased decentralization of the Collective, and led to better outcomes among disputes. Our group activities and communication across Optimism’s online platform and community events appeared to reduce the frequency of disputes, reduce incivility on the online platforms, and provide a support mechanism to community members who felt they had been wronged or generally unsafe in the community; i.e. We were always there if people needed us, and it appeared as if many in the community knew this.
3 . What changes would you make to the Internal Operating Procedures (IOP’s)?
Incentivizing people in the community to be closer to the COCC. We should be able to know about conflicts when they are small. If we are not seen close to the community, it will be harder to access cases and we’ll only perceive them when they are big.
I think an important goal is to keep the IOPs simple, clear, and easy to understand and adhere to. With this as a goal, I am pleased that the CoCC did indeed dedicate significant time and energy to creating and/or refining the IOPs, while always seeking feedback from the community and the Foundation.
4 . Suggested adjustments to the Charter.
Open the forms to not only strong Code of Conduct violations but also tearings of the social fabric, allowing feedback loops and notification of issues when they are small as fast as possible. Leading to not only Yes or No decisions, but to transforming polarities into informed dialogue spaces.
A change that I’ve previously discussed, is that Reports should be received, processed, and reported on with 2 consecutive Voting Cycles, and not only one (i.e. the same) Voting Cycle. I believe this change would improve decision-making by the CoCC reduce pressures on CoCC Members and minimize conflicts among CoCC Members.
Giving more space for innovation within the CoCC to innovations, for example, for this initial Season we started exploring within the Council the option to use Attestations within our decisions and roles, this was something that wasn´t part of the Charter, but I believe adding within the Charter a research or investigative area that includes an open mandate to innovate as Council would be seen by the members as an open playground. I also believe that working more closely with other members of the community generates a broader impact, for example, in future mandates, the CoCC can work more closely in experimenting under Missions or similar. Cross-collaboration is key, for the Attestations a member of the community, @LauNaMu, helped us understand more about Attestations and how these could be implemented within the Council in favor of the Collective. Something that also was in our conversations, was to see how could the CoCC could work together with other Protocols, such as Arbitrum, for issues that expand our borders, and are out of our scope, but still relevant to the Collective.
5 . What improvements to the team’s mandate would you suggest for next Season? If you don’t believe the team’s operations should continue next Season, please explain why here.
I feel that ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) and report voting could be parallelized. The Council’s role in voting on behalf of the Token House cannot be assumed by any other entity, however, with additional resources we could expand and potentially onboard a more comprehensive method for resolutions beyond the council members themselves.
I think we should continue next season, and be given support to pivot cases to facilitation of ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution). I think this experiment was fun and beneficial to the community and the participants of the COCC (Code of Conduct Council). In my opinion, for next season we can continue polishing and iterating based on what was built to support the community and the foundation in the better identification and processing of code of conduct violations and overall management of conflicts in the Optimism ecosystem.
I think there can be two parallel streams to handle Reports. While the CoCC should remain the first ‘port-of-call’ or ‘first responder’ for all Reports, the CoCC should have the option to off-ramp selected cases to an external ADR body or process. The external ADR provider could provide increased expertise and dedicated time and staff for the longer term (supported or created by adequate funding) that could better handle these embedded, but recoverable disputes, in comparison to the direct CoCC. Cases that are not off-ramped to ADR would remain the responsibility of the CoCC, and the CoCC could increase the specialization, efficiency, and effectiveness in investigating, processing, adjudicating, and reporting on cases that lean more to obvious abuse, infractions, or breaches, as opposed to the human, personality or political disputes that are more likely breakdowns in the social fabric of the community but can still be recovered (i.e. these cases are handled by the ADR body).
The mandate of the CoCC is of high importance to the Collective because due process is required when members of the Token House are subject to any kind of sanction, especially when this sanction involves not only deleting a post but also imposing higher sanctions such as limiting their ability to participate in the Forum.
Potentially, this could be the last post from the members who are part of this initial experiment. We have forged bonds that we know will always be there among us. We thank you immensely once again for this opportunity.
Regards :heart_decoration:,
@gene @Axel_T @Juanbug_PGov @Oxytocin @juankbell @teresacd
Likes: 15
Replies: 0
Likers:
Liliop.eth,
Bunnic,
Axel_T,
maintainer.eth,
teresacd,
eugenia,
lavande,
Juanbug_PGov,
juankbell,
LauNaMu,
web3magnetic,
gene,
SolarPunk-Jedi,
AjpuMonica,
fujiar
No replies yet.
-
Code of Conduct Council Retrospective - Season 5
by CoCCouncil - No Role
Posted on: May 4, 2024, 6:56 p.m.
Content: (topic deleted by author)
Likes: 1
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
Code of Conduct Council Communication Thread
by CoCCouncil - No Role
Posted on: May 4, 2024, 6:22 p.m.
Content: Retrospective - Season 5
First of all, thank you for allowing the members of this Council for Season 5 to be part of the Collective. We have learned a lot and worked in favor of the participants of the Collective. We have conducted this Retrospective internally and want to share some important points with all of you.
Please note that in some responses, there are various conclusions. We believe that seeing the different perspectives of the members is more important than reaching a consensus when submitting a Retrospective.
1 . What is your assessment of any benchmark milestones and/or impact KPIs that were set in your Budget Proposal or Charter at the start of the Season? Have you made progress towards, or achieved, these milestones or KPIs?
We believe we have achieved progress based on our mandate, there has been less governance overhead in the management of conflicts by the Foundation, and less voting around the Code of Conduct sanctions, contributing to these Goals, by replacing the Foundation in the processing of reported Code of Conduct Violations and eliminating enforcement responsibilities for Token House delegates by entrusting the Code of Conduct Council to process disputes. To create accountability for the Code of Conduct Council, the Token House may veto enforcement actions at any time
Generally, the introduction of Optimistic Enforcement of actions alone has already led to fewer votes needed from the Token House on these matters, we think we were effective at these goals.
While the CoCC wasn’t perfect, we successfully achieved these goals by soaking up governance overhead that would have otherwise fallen on the token. Our small group size (as opposed to the large Token House) meant we could dedicate more time and attention to each case than the Token House could, which would have ideally led to more optimal outcomes for the cases. Finally, the fact the CoCC Members were drawn from rank-and-file members of the Optimism Community, increased the decentralization of Optimism Governance and minimized the need of the Foundation to remain in control.
2 . Impact assessment - how well did your team’s outputs support the Intent they were authorized under?
All reports were discussed, with different perspectives being given for each case from members. The biggest output I am impressed with the Council has been the communications on the thread, with many members being able to handle publicly very sensitive threads.
We managed cases that were a load on the Foundation and the community, taking off weight to specific areas and taking care of the public image of the collective. Managing conflict is one of those areas whose impact is invisible, and trying to measure it is paradoxical. It’s hard to reach a consensus in dicotomic situations and there will be a certain amount of descent to decisions we make. If we want to have conflict, to prove our capacity to manage it, we are incentivizing the first unwanted premise. If there are a few conflicts, we may think the group is not needed. It’s good that the conflict management offices are prepared for any emergency, and also that there are moments without conflict that prevention.
I think it’s less important to discuss the team’s outputs, and more important to focus on the indirect benefit to the Optimism Collective that the CoCC provided. Our inner workings and outputs ultimately minimized governance overhead for the Token House, increased decentralization of the Collective, and led to better outcomes among disputes. Our group activities and communication across Optimism’s online platform and community events appeared to reduce the frequency of disputes, reduce incivility on the online platforms, and provide a support mechanism to community members who felt they had been wronged or generally unsafe in the community; i.e. We were always there if people needed us, and it appeared as if many in the community knew this.
3 . What changes would you make to the Internal Operating Procedures (IOP’s)?
Incentivizing people in the community to be closer to the COCC. We should be able to know about conflicts when they are small. If we are not seen close to the community, it will be harder to access cases and we’ll only perceive them when they are big.
I think an important goal is to keep the IOPs simple, clear, and easy to understand and adhere to. With this as a goal, I am pleased that the CoCC did indeed dedicate significant time and energy to creating and/or refining the IOPs, while always seeking feedback from the community and the Foundation.
4 . Suggested adjustments to the Charter.
Open the forms to not only strong Code of Conduct violations but also tearings of the social fabric, allowing feedback loops and notification of issues when they are small as fast as possible. Leading to not only Yes or No decisions, but to transforming polarities into informed dialogue spaces.
A change that I’ve previously discussed, is that Reports should be received, processed, and reported on with 2 consecutive Voting Cycles, and not only one (i.e. the same) Voting Cycle. I believe this change would improve decision-making by the CoCC reduce pressures on CoCC Members and minimize conflicts among CoCC Members.
Giving more space for innovation within the CoCC to innovations, for example, for this initial Season we started exploring within the Council the option to use Attestations within our decisions and roles, this was something that wasn´t part of the Charter, but I believe adding within the Charter a research or investigative area that includes an open mandate to innovate as Council would be seen by the members as an open playground.
5 . What improvements to the team’s mandate would you suggest for next Season? If you don’t believe the team’s operations should continue next Season, please explain why here.
I feel that ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) and report voting could be parallelized. The Council’s role in voting on behalf of the Token House cannot be assumed by any other entity, however, with additional resources we could expand and potentially onboard a more comprehensive method for resolutions beyond the council members themselves.
I think we should continue next season, and be given support to pivot cases to facilitation of ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution). I think this experiment was fun and beneficial to the community and the participants of the COCC (Code of Conduct Council). In my opinion, for next season we can continue polishing and iterating based on what was built to support the community and the foundation in the better identification and processing of code of conduct violations and overall management of conflicts in the Optimism ecosystem.
I think there can be two parallel streams to handle Reports. While the CoCC should remain the first ‘port-of-call’ or ‘first responder’ for all Reports, the CoCC should have the option to off-ramp selected cases to an external ADR body or process. The external ADR provider could provide increased expertise and dedicated time and staff for the longer term (supported or created by adequate funding) that could better handle these embedded, but recoverable disputes, in comparison to the direct CoCC. Cases that are not off-ramped to ADR would remain the responsibility of the CoCC, and the CoCC could increase the specialization, efficiency, and effectiveness in investigating, processing, adjudicating, and reporting on cases that lean more to obvious abuse, infractions, or breaches, as opposed to the human, personality or political disputes that are more likely breakdowns in the social fabric of the community but can still be recovered (i.e. these cases are handled by the ADR body).
The mandate of the CoCC is of high importance to the Collective because due process is required when members of the Token House are subject to any kind of sanction, especially when this sanction involves not only deleting a post but also imposing higher sanctions such as limiting their ability to participate in the Forum.
Potentially, this could be the last post from the members who are part of this initial experiment. We have forged bonds that we know will always be there among us. We thank you immensely once again for this opportunity.
Regards :heart_decoration:,
@gene @Axel_T @Juanbug_PGov @Oxytocin @juankbell @teresacd
Likes: 3
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
Code of Conduct Council Retrospective - Season 5
by CoCCouncil - No Role
Posted on: May 4, 2024, 2:56 p.m.
Content: (topic deleted by author)
Likes: 1
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
Code of Conduct Council Communication Thread
by CoCCouncil - No Role
Posted on: April 30, 2024, 1:56 p.m.
Content: Hello Optimists!
We want to update the community on our Internal Procedures, please find them linked here. 4
We have no updates regarding Reports to communicate on, as always, it’s a pleasure to work towards a better Collective.
See you,
CoCC
Likes: 5
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
-
Code of Conduct Council - Internal Procedures
by CoCCouncil - No Role
Posted on: April 30, 2024, 1:52 p.m.
Content: Hello Optimists!
Thanks everyone for your Feedback, and please find our amendment to the Internal Procedures for the CoCC below:
Key points when addressing a Report
Upon receipt of a report, the Code of Conduct Council (CoCC) will notify the involved parties of the report’s existence to ensure transparency and fairness in the process.
Then the CoCC will engage with the involved parties confidentially through the Council’s official account to gather comprehensive information pertinent to each case. This step is crucial for an informed decision-making process.
The individuals or groups reported will be informed about the specifics of the report and will be able to submit any additional evidence or information they deem relevant for the assessment of the report.
The CoCC members will independently review the details of the open reports. Each member will contribute to a shared Report Evaluation Document and cast an anonymous vote.
Decisions within the CoCC will be reached by a simple majority.
The Lead of the CoCC, while not a voting member, shall possess the authority to make decisive calls in the event of a deadlock among the Council members.
The CoCC’s voting will focus on two key aspects: the occurrence of a violation and the severity of the said violation.
The CoCC will finalize the evaluation of all reports received during the said period. The findings will be presented as an “Optimistic Vote” to the Token House, allowing for a potential veto of any enforcement actions proposed by the CoCC. A comprehensive document detailing the resolution of each report, along with relevant non-confidential information, will be published for the involved parties and the broader community, maintaining the confidentiality of specific details as required.
As per the Token House Code of Conduct Council Charter where a report cannot be addressed within the current Review Period due to it being submitted less than 3 days before the end of the Review Period, the CoCC will ensure its resolution before the conclusion of the subsequent Review Period.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Should the CoCC ascertain that the report is amenable to ADR methods and the involved parties consent to this approach, the CoCC will facilitate this process. This will suspend any further evaluation or decision-making by the CoCC, and a designated lead from the CoCC will oversee the ADR process.
In the event of a Voting Conflict: Council members are required to disclose any conflicts of interest immediately and recuse themselves from the decision-making process regarding the report in question. The remaining Council members will proceed with the vote, with a simple majority constituting a quorum.
Subsequent Violations: Should the reported parties persist in their problematic behavior following a decision and the imposition of an enforcement action, it is imperative to report this continued misconduct to the CoCC through a new report.
Documentation and Accountability
All claims, reports, and enforcement decisions must be thoroughly documented, with non-confidential information and public resolutions being communicated through the community forum.
Council Members’ Obligations: Council members are expected to participate in over 70 % of the votes. The Lead is responsible for coordinating the review process, convening regular Council meetings (at least once per Voting Cycle), and acting as a tiebreaker in the event of a deadlock on administrative or operational matters. A retrospective analysis will be conducted at the end of each Season to ensure all documentation is current for incoming Council members.
Maintaining CoCC Transparency: At the end of each Review Period, the CoCC will publish a summary of enforcement decisions made during the Voting Cycle. These decisions are subject to optimistic approval, meaning they are deemed approved unless explicitly vetoed by the Token House. Should any enforcement action garner more than 12 % of “no” votes from the votable supply, it will be escalated to a full Token House vote in the subsequent Voting Cycle, and no enforcement action will be taken in the interim.
Modifications to Internal Procedures: Any amendments to these internal procedures require approval by a majority plus one of the CoCC members, always taking into consideration the Charter.
Likes: 3
Replies: 0
No replies yet.
