I love how we’re iterating and innovating continuously here.
One amendment I’d make to this amendment is to allow consensus building before going to a majority rule, while providing some privacy before an appeal forces disputes to be done in public, to prevent escalation, reputation tainting, etc (for example we had someone try to bribe a VitaCore member - we simply informed that person they’re not welcome, and didn’t have to go start a public conflict, where we all lose, really).
Decisions about hiring or promoting individuals are never done in public. Imagine every company board having to explain publicly (to shareholders) why they don’t like a certain candidate.
A good argument is made to allow for Dispute Resolution and appeals.
Allowing the majority to rule over the minority is a failure in consensus building and should be used as a last resort.
We also must be careful to not try to innovate too much on non-core aspects (research funding activities) lest we have unforeseen side effects. There must be other DAOs (and other organizations) that are focusing on innovating in these aspects and we shouldn’t try to reinvent all the wheels.
That said, I propose the following process:
- Any working group member can nominate anyone they have significant overlap in their activities with, as a VitaCore member who fulfills and agrees to the requirements listed below.
- Any VitaCore member can challenge the nomination within a week. If the nomination isn’t withdrawn in private (by the nominator or nominee) and VitaCore doesn’t reach a positive consensus within a week, a Dispute Resolution process starts, in accordance with the following clause in VitaDAO’s agency agreements:
“Dispute Resolution” means the process described herein to resolve any controversy, dispute, or claim between VitaDAO members regarding any matter related to their work with VitaDAO.
In the case of any controversy, dispute, or claim, the members will resort to first to amicable and direct negotiation. If the matter is not resolved through negotiation within 10 days of the initiation of the conversation, then the matter will proceed to mediation with a neutral member of the VitaDAO Legal Working Group. If the dispute cannot be resolved within 20 hours of mediation over not more than 30 days, then the matter will proceed to off-chain or on-chain arbitration.
All VitaDAO members hereby agree that any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to their work at VitaDAO including the validity, interpretation, or termination thereof, including whether the claims asserted are arbitrable, will be referred to and finally determined by arbitration. If on-chain, then the dispute shall be administered using the Kleros online arbitration system and in accordance with its rules. If off-chain, then the dispute shall be administered by JAMS pursuant to its Comprehensive Arbitration Rules and Procedures and in accordance with the Expedited Procedures in those Rules. In any event, the tribunal will consist of one arbitrator. The language used in the arbitral proceedings will be English. Costs shall be borne by the party initiating the dispute, who shall have the right to request a costs award from the other party. Judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrators may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof.
The purpose of the Dispute Resolution process is to achieve a mutually agreed withdrawal of the nomination or challenge, or otherwise to provide guidance to VitaCore as to what material facts must be taken into account and correct interpretation of rules before making a decision regarding the nomination
3. If the nomination isn’t challenged, or after the Dispute Resolution process is concluded, members of all working groups vote on the nomination via a verifiable secret vote.
4. If a majority of votes is in agreement, the nominated VitaCore member is offered the position.
5. If the nominee accepts, they are officially onboarded as a VitaCore member.