Updating the Code of Conduct & DAO's Procedures

[Entropy]

Given the reception of the Code of Conduct revisions thus far, we feel comfortable moving this to a Snapshot vote. With the previous iteration requiring a majority approval and quorum set as at least 3% of all votable tokens having cast votes in favor or abstaining, this version will be held to the same requirements. If this proposal passes on Snapshot, the updated versions of the Code of Conduct and DAO Procedures will go into effect immediately.

Two changes that have been made to the proposal since Tuesday. The first is based on a suggestion from @krst during the open discussion. The Enforcement & Appeal Process section has been updated with the following language, which requires that the responsible party must at least acknowledge receipt and investigate a Code of Conduct violation raised by a community member:

@Entropy

Any community member can raise a concern to the party responsible for managing the program with respect to a contributor failing to uphold the Code of Conduct. While the responsible party is required to acknowledge receipt of the concern and investigate the matter, the final determination and resulting course of action, which may include dismissing the concern, will depend on the underlying program’s structure.

The second change is the addition of a clarifying sentence to the Voting Requirement for the Cancellation of Ongoing Initiatives section for when there are multiple voting options beyond the basic FOR/AGAINST/ABSTAIN. The intention of the original language is to address instances where both modification & cancellation are proposed as options for voters, which is something the DAO has seen before. However, it is intended to only be applicable when cancellation or a clawback is being considered.

@Entropy

A Snapshot vote where the number of FOR votes to wind down the initiative meets 3% of the votable supply. If there are more voting options than the basic FOR/AGAINST/ABSTAIN, the option with the largest number of votes will be applied, given that the options to modify/cancel an initiative together exceed the 3% of votable supply level. For the purpose of clarity, if a proposal only seeks to modify an existing initiative, this voting requirement will not apply.

Lastly, we’d like to thank @jameskbh for the thoughtful suggestions; however, after considering the proposed revisions we have decided not to make any changes. This is primarily due to our preference to keep the sub-sections of the Code of Conduct that could be added to the Arbitrum Constitution at a sufficiently high-level. Additionally, we are hesitant to add an explicit suggestion to refrain from voting with current participation rates as well as adding overly descriptive rules regarding timing due to the difficulty of enforcing consistently. Finally, regarding the clause highlighted from the the cancellation requirements, we believe it already accounts for the scenario you are concerned about. If there are multiple options and AGAINST (which in this case means continuing the initiative) has the largest number of votes, then it will be the option applied.