The status.im code of conduct is near unique in its recognition of power dynamics.
For example it places onus on leadership for accountability.
Other than it’s prohibition of glaring, which I feel to be subjective, if that code of conduct were placed on the cosmos hub and then evenly enforced, which the current code of conduct is not, We could just have validators instead of fucking validators although it’s really clear that there’s only one type of validators, validators with 20% commissions, poor up time, and endorsement from the ICF. All the others are fucking validators, according to informal systems team member Jehan Tremback.
You see, the contributors covenant is completely unenforceable because what if somebody finds my farts offensive to their religion or sexual orientation or gender? I fart loudly many times a day.
No let’s avoid dangerous misinterpretations because the contributor’s covenant could ban me from even discussing my concern that my farts are offensive to others but I’m concerned about that. Also I’m concerned that the contributors covenant will continue to be enforced in an arbitrary manner. That is absolutely not okay. Because there is no corporation behind the hub, I think that it is important to have the people making decisions about code of conduct violations actually be out in the open. They should be identified and accountable. So that’s one modification that we would need to make for me status code of conduct. Without transparency we die.
Out of my deep concern for ensuring that I do not violate the current code of conduct, I wish to say that I want for people of all color religion shape size sexual orientation gender and stuff like that on anything else to be able to contribute to the cosmos hub at parity to anyone else. I am not seeking to remove or marginalize anyone but instead provide the community the clarity that it deserves.
Of course, I’ve violated the existing code of conduct, and I’ve got to reckon that nearly every user of this forum has. There are bits of the new one suggested by @sacha that I’m not a huge fan of (essentially things requiring interpretation) but at the end of the day, this is a dramatic improvement to the previous one.
I think that it would also be pretty sensible to hand enforcement of the code of conduct over to governance. That way, certain scenarios cannot play out, for example:
- difficulty between repo maintainers and code contributors who validate due to a complete lack of clarity around expectations.
This takes away “the ax” the ability to career ending code of conduct violation accusations as a way of further gating the private discord server gaia is developed from, taking the project further from the stated goal of decentralization and putting ultimate power in the hands of repo maintainers.
lack of clear expectations on the part of all community members due to the code of conduct’s vast, sprawling nature.
double standards like what is driving the censure proposal. It shouldn’t be alright to refer to the validators collectively as “fucking validators” while trying to toss a validator under the bus for disclosing this:
The wisest move – most likely – for all parties here, is to cede the ax and allow governance to deal with code of conduct violations. The other option is of course to simply remove the governance module from Gaia entirely and call it a day on gov. Surely, it seems that the Interchain Foundation, which controls the Gaia repository, isn’t terribly concerned with governance anyhow:
It delegates massively to validators who don’t think governance matters.
Here’s another example of what I believe to be one-sided code of conduct enforcement that leads me to believe that the code of conduct was used influence governance decisions of validators during proposal 69. Please keep in mind that the code of conduct accusations against myself were made in front of an audience consisting entirely of Cosmos hub validators. It is not unreasonable to believe that this would have a chilling effect on governance debate on the cosmos hub.
More recently, an ICF Grant recipient, Rick Dudley, made numerous claims about my person and character.
One of the many reasons that I think that this is unfortunate is that I actually think that Rick is one of the more insightful people around, however there really can be no doubt that his ad hominem attacks against me violate the contributors covenant. I think it would be much simpler for the ICF to simply address issues around delegations, or say that they strongly endorse the validators that they delegate to.
Interestingly, a member of the cosmos hub team stated that the code of conduct was on the Gaia repository to protect me.
Really I don’t really need or want protection, and in fact the only thing that I have seen the code of conduct used to protect anyone from, is to protect the ICF/cosmos hub team from a validators participation in governance.