Thank you so much Savva for these thoughtful comments.
I honestly don’t have much to add as I personally agree with practically everything you suggested.
That makes a lot of sense to me, however I wonder how this would play out in practice. I wonder whether we should be more specific regarding that process of mediation as well as the sense-making of any new insights arising during that mediation. Without assuming anyone would be badly intentioned, I do worry that this phrasing could end up being a toothless tiger without some sort of neutral mediator who may put pressure on anyone not taking this process seriously and/or make some sort of judgement which standpoint of a dispute is likely the legitimate one?
On that note, we are talking to Juan from Gravity next week about dispute resolution practices and, as you mentioned Savva, we can also make use of Kleros:
That is something I’ve been thinking about too and would like to see in place. I know that we already included Kleros arbitration in one or a few legal contracts, but not elsewhere AFAIK. Ideally, we would have Kleros arbitration set up as a last resort that automatically applies to all decisions and disputes across the DAO. Do you have an idea of to implement that effectively? Would we have to reference this condition in every single proposal or could we define this one (e.g., through a proposal) so that it is legally effective for all decisions, including non-proposals such as soft governance?
I agree in principle, though I’d like to add that we’re also now discussing VDP-34 which may introduce a clear definition with stakeholder groups who make up what’s been known as “VitaCore”. If it passes as is, this would define working group stewards and co-stewards as part of VitaCore, alongside other stakeholder groups. Meaning, an individual cannot become a member of VitaCore directly, but only through their function in one of the stakeholder groups defined in VDP-34. I do agree though that we might need to include the other stakeholder groups mentioned there in such a process definition. I’d encourage any feedback on that directly in VDP-34
Lastly, just noting that we already have a Code of Conduct, but it does not yet include conflicts of interests nor has it been effectively distributed and communicated. We should make this document part of the onboarding process as well as attach it to any message that relates to some kind of working group contributions, such as bounties and salaries. I’ve created space to discuss this here in VDP-37 and already included your remarks on conflicts of interests. Curious for any further amendments we should make.