VDP-37 VitaDAO Governance Amendment #2

[theobtl]

@Savva

Would tweak as follows:

“Any member of the DAO can submit a suspected breach of the Code of Conduct by another member of the DAO for Dispute Resolution that will include the authority to reprimand, penalise or expel any member of the DAO.”

Very good, thanks. I’ve updated the proposal accordingly. cc @audieleon

@Savva

I had proposed defining a Dispute Resolution process here VDP-36 Stewardship Process Amendment #1 - #2 by Savva , reproduced below (but with proposed amendment by Jesse to be consistent with existing Dispute Resolution clauses in our agency agreements):

This proposal now includes a new section e) Introducing a Dispute Resolution Process where we can gather all governance related to dispute resolution and outsource these from our code of conduct, the Stewardship Process proposal and elsewhere as it makes a lot more sense IMO to define our dispute resolution process in one place and have other proposals that make use of it just reference it.

Your phrasing with @Jesse’s and @longevion’s inputs elsewhere seems overall excellent to me.

Questions from my side:

• Are five hours of mediation over ten days sufficient to cover most cases? Others (TEC) have told us that mediation takes them typically around ten hours, which of course is a lot of time on the other hand. We could also start out with five hours and update the proposal if we realise that this is not sufficient for most cases.
• You are mentioning JAMS, presumably referring to this. Could you briefly describe why, and how this would look in practice? Do they have publicly available guidelines that you are referring to which we would apply? Would we hire them for their services and if so, roughly at which costs?

I also added this phrase to ensure this will be effective by communicating the document and getting consent.

The above will be published alongside the Code of Conduct and should be communicated appropriately. Beyond the governance process to approve this proposal, this includes a checkbox in application and onboarding forms for new members joining working groups, as well as prominent and reoccurring placements in our communication channels, including Discord, Telegram, email and Twitter.

@Savva

However, while I hope that most issues can be resolved by “mediation”, in my view, we may want to consider having a VitaDAO tribunal (e.g. 2 members of legal WG + 1 WG member with dispute resolution experience) which is delegated executive power by VitaCore and/or VitaDAO token holders, with final right of appeal to on-chain or off-chain arbitration.

Yes, and we should to try to make this mediation process as effective as possible by consulting more experts on the matter to get the process right and by providing/recommending trainings to all members. A tribunal of two legal WG members and another member of any WG makes sense to me; the legal WG is not only highly qualified but generally takes more of a neutral stance within the DAO. The other WG member should be involved with related subject matteres and ideally have witnessed some of the relevant issues. All three WG members should have some experience in dispute resolution or related techniques.

@Savva

A formal and transparent means to resolve disputes taking into account principles of due process / procedural fairness / natural justice will improve resiliency and anti-fragility of the DAO overall.

I wholeheartedly agree. The DAO will be in a much better position with these in place.