The governance working group suggests improving parts of VDP-1 , VDP-12 , the Code of Conduct and other governance proposals and governance-related documents to further improve our governance processes.

Motivation

In the four months since VDP-12 VitaDAO Governance Framework Amendment #1 , several more issues with our current governance processes arose which may require modification. This second amendment to VDP-1 is an umbrella proposal with several issues that need to be discussed independently.

Specification

a) Phase 3: Increasing the Quorum

Corresponding section in VDP-1

We propose to increase the quorum for phase 3 votes on Snapshot from 965K VITA to 1.2M VITA which is about 8% of VITA’s circulating supply as of May 2022.

b) Phase 2/3: Not merging Phases 2 and 3 to Always Require a Snapshot Vote

Corresponding section in VDP-1

We propose not to merge phases 2 and 3 but put this question up for discussion.

The argument made was that Discourse polls are prone to manipulation as they are ‘one account one vote’ and Discourse accounts are neither tied to KYC/SSID, token ownership, nor to any other limiting factor, except Discourse Trust Levels which provide spam protection only to some degree. This is particularly relevant for proposals that do not require a phase 3 vote but end at phase 2.

Improving this process could include increasing the thresholds for soft governance to include proposals that formerly counted as low-stakes phase 2 proposals. Proposals beyond that threshold would be discussed on Discourse for a given amount of time and then being voted on through a token-weighted vote on Snapshot. There would be no more Discourse poll involved.

c) User Types: Introducing “Stakeholders”

Corresponding section in VDP-1

We propose to introduce “Stakeholders” as a new user type, defined as follows: “Stakeholders include VitaDAO members, working group members, service providers, VitaCore, as well as any other natural or legal persons who consider themselves affected by or otherwise interested in VitaDAO.”

We further propose to change all instances of “members” exclusively in Phase 1: Ideation and Phase 2: Specification to “stakeholders”.

d) Improving the Code of Conduct

Currently, the Code of Conduct reads as follows:

OVERVIEW

The VitaDAO community contains professionals and volunteers from all over the world working in many different capacities including investigating intellectual property, leading working groups, writing code, managing events, and managing social channels. Diversity is one of our strengths, but it can sometimes give rise to miscommunication and conflict. To ensure that all of our contributors feel welcome and valued, our code of conduct establishes clear expectations for participants in VitaDAO. It is not intended to serve as an exhaustive list of prohibited behavior, but rather, a set of principles for maintaining a healthy and inclusive community. This code of conduct applies to all activities of VitaDAO. In some cases, violations of this code may affect a person’s ability to participate in our community.

REPORTING VIOLATIONS

Please report any code of conduct violations by reaching out to an admin in one of VitaDAO’s channels or by email. We are committed to protecting the privacy and safety of anyone who reports a violation.

CODE OF CONDUCT

Be friendly and patient. Be welcoming. We strive to be a community that welcomes and supports people of all backgrounds and identities. This includes members of any race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, color, immigration status, social and economic class, educational level, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, age, size, family status, political belief, religion, and mental and physical ability.

Be considerate. Your work will be used by other people, and you in turn will depend on the work of others. Any decision you take will affect users and colleagues, and you should take those consequences into account when making decisions. Remember that we’re a world-wide community, so you might not be communicating in someone else’s primary language.

Be respectful. People working together will inevitably disagree or become frustrated with one another at times, but conflict is no excuse for bad behavior or personal attacks. A community where people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one. Be respectful of one another and those outside our community who interact with us. Be careful in the words that you choose. Conduct yourself professionally.

Be kind to others. Refrain from all forms of harassment, including: Violent threats or language directed against another person. Discriminatory jokes and language. Posting sexually explicit or violent material. Posting (or threatening to post) other people’s personally identifying information (“doxxing”). Personal insults, especially those using racist or sexist terms. Unwelcome sexual attention. Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behavior. Repeated harassment of others. In general, if someone asks you to stop, then stop.

Be understanding. Strive to resolve disagreements constructively. Our contributors come from different backgrounds and have different perspectives. If you disagree with someone, seek to understand their perspective and share yours respectfully.

We propose to keep the above version of the Code of Conduct in place and add the following below:

Governance participation with a Conflict of Interest is forbidden. Any member of a working group or VitaCore with a potential conflict of interest must disclose the conflict to VitaCore and abstain from governance participation, which includes voting and the discussion of the vote. A conflict of interest is anything a reasonable person (or arbitrator) might believe results in competing professional or personal obligations or personal or financial interests that would make it difficult to participate fairly in governance. Members of a working group or VitaCore are subject to fiduciary duties to act in good faith for the benefit of the VitaDAO token holders and broader community as a whole.

In case of doubt about whether a case qualifies as a conflict of interest, the legal working group of VitaDAO will take that decision through soft governance among its contributors (Discord tag "Legal WG Contributor", excluding guests) in its Discord chat "#legal-wg" or an appropriate alternative, such as a legal working group call.

Conflicts of interests must be disclosed in the corresponding proposal (in phase 1, in phase 2 on Discourse, and in phase 3 on Snapshot) as well as other relevant channels, such as the Vitacore channel or a working group channel on Discord. Conflicts of interest not disclosed prior to governance participation can result in a reprimand, a penalty, or removal from the DAO.

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.

Moreover, the Code of Conduct will be amended with a brief explanation of and further resources on the Dispute Resolution Process, should the corresponding proposal pass.

Upon passing of this proposal, the revised Code of Conduct should be communicated appropriately. 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.

e) [deleted]

f) Reintroducing Proposals

In principle, VitaDAO members are free to propose anything at anytime as part of VitaDAO's governance framework. However, if a proposal was cancelled/voted out and repeatedly reintroduced in an identical or nearly identical form right away, the community would likely treat such posts as spam under the Code of Conduct.

We propose to allow an identical or nearly-identical proposal that did not pass phase 3 on Snapshot to be reintroduced right away under certain circumstances.

One such reason could be if a phase 3 proposal on Snapshot does not reach quorum and if there is reason to believe that this is not intentional but due to external factors, such as holiday seasons. Another potential reason could be if a vote is flipped at the very last minute through a significant number of tokens and if there is reason to believe that others refrained from voting because they did not expect such a flip to happen.

Since the list of appropriate circumstances could not be exhaustively defined, the decision whether a proposal is eligible to be reintroduced will be taken by VitaCore through majority vote on a case-by-case basis. The proposal author is responsible to request a reintroduction of their proposal to a member VitaCore and, in case of a dispute, can trigger a Dispute Resolution Process.

Implementation

If this proposal passes phase 2 as well as the Snapshot vote, all amendments will be implemented by the governance working group in collaboration with the technical working group and incorporated into the document ‘Bylaws for the DAO’ summarising the latest state of all VDPs including updates and amendments such as this proposal.