The Election Standards will not apply to the upcoming Security Council elections nor any other onchain election. Rationale is explained in detail above, but they will only apply to Snapshot:
1 Like
As the DAO approaches the end of its 6.5 month trial period for the Code of Conduct (CoC) and updated procedures, as ratified in this Snapshot proposal, we wanted to share our thoughts on why we believe this trial period should be extended till the end of the year.
The proposal states that once the 6.5 month trial period ends on May 30th, 2025, it should be considered for permanent inclusion in the Arbitrum Constitution. However, we believe that this would be premature, as the CoC in particular, hasn’t yet been battle tested enough (i.e. no one has been removed from any DAO program as a result of it).
For this to be effective, the DAO would need to agree to extend the trial period along with incorporating any changes to the current Code of Conduct and/ or DAO Procedures, via a Snapshot vote. The Arbitrum Foundation has been in conversation with Entropy about what these adjustments may entail. Entropy is working on a follow up proposal that will be brought to the DAO for further community input in the coming weeks.
5 Likes
but after May 30th (in 2 days) the Delegate Code of Conduct is not in place anymore, right? and it will only return once another offchain vote passes (with more than 3% quorum) with an extension of that trial as you’re suggesting.
@Entropy why wasn’t this done earlier? so that we wouldn’t have a period without an active Delegate CoC?
I think yes, of course. According to the vote that took place, the term is valid until May 30.
After that, this code does not work, however, as before, for a long time we had a common understanding of the rules of action and communication of delegates on the forum and all of it.
However, I also think that there is a flaw here, since the vote on this issue should have taken place before the trial period ended
What is the relevance of battle testings as defined by removals from DAO programs? The policies broadly make sense, and the fact that no one has been punished wouldn’t change this. Are you speaking more to the enforceability of the CoC? If that is the case, it should be able to be run and verified in simulation.
Regarding permanent invocation vs continued temporary extension: is there a benefit to an extension or a detriment to simply establishing a permanent CoC, which, like a constitution, is designed to evolve over time?
Further, I’d advocate for the inclusion of a section regarding a DAO-wide privacy expectations / policy as well as formalized meeting and call procedures.
I’ve commented further here: Proposal: enable the new TogetherCrew functionality: Free* summarizer and Q&A for delegates telegram chat - #33 by DonOfDAOs
3 Likes
As you rightfully noted, it’s likely that the CoC may need further refinement over time. While it’s designed to evolve through iteration, updating the constitution is a significantly higher-stakes move, as constitutional amendments need to meet a higher quorum threshold and are difficult to revise.
Therefore, we believe that the DAO should continue testing and refining the CoC in its current trial format and should be confident that the CoC is in a near-final state, before considering its inclusion in the constitution. Not only does this safeguard the integrity of the constitution, but it also ensures that the CoC—an important document that sets the tone for the entire DAO—is fully matured before being made permanent.