The Bankless DAO Ombuds: A confidential, informal and off-chain dispute resolution mechanism that supports our social layer

Thank you to all involved for this well presented idea.

2 Likes

Excellent idea.

In my previous workplaces: we have this anonymous form to report on workplace harrassments and abuses.

And these reports go straight to the higher management. Good idea!

1 Like

Really like the direction of this. It’s really important to address dispute resolution mechanisms early and I really appreciate the non-binding nature and outlined methods as a starting point. I also really like the idea of staking entering into the picture at some point too and possible emergence of more decentralized mechanics that move past mediation into the realm of decentralized binding arbitration (not even sure what that is or means but I’m excited for this being established as a start and to see where it evolves to). I support.

I would love to hear form the ‘not in support and needs amendments’ votes soon so we can enhance the discourse here – it’s a complex topic and we need the wisdom of the crowd on this :crossed_fingers: more chatter from those putting on a ‘red team hat’ soon.

@Eagle this feels important enough to warrant a snapshot vote; can you confirm that is the plan?

Only clarification I see needed: active gc and genesis role omission, or permanent omission once those roles are held

1 Like

I think this a great idea, and good timing for it as well. The more we grow, the more we need people to fill roles that help people feel welcome, and keep the DAO running smoothly.

Bravo!

1 Like

That’s a good point Joe. I would say that the limitation works only for active roles.

Due to the fact that the Legal guild would cover the costs for Season 1, the idea was to launch a mere forum vote in order to establish the Ombuds and a second forum vote to select the candidates who will become members of the Ombuds. Then, if in the forthcoming seasons the Ombuds will evolve in a more structured dispute resolution mechanism, we would go for a snapshot vote.

Yeah that makes sense. snapshot should probably gate anything of delegated authority, decision rights, or even perceived authority, regardless of funding source…but agree with your logic that in current early experiment form it’s an optional service with tons of upside and low to nil downside.

Thanks for discussing with me.

Great work and excellent idea for the Bankless DAO Ombudsman, just voted in favor.

One question: “The duration of the mandate will be 1 year.”

    • is there a reason for this time period? Has consideration been given to other time ranges? (season-by-season or 2-3 seasons?).

Hi all, this is my first post here - my discord username is pab​:honeybee::octopus:#6151 - I’ve a guest pass and have been looking into stuff every now and then so pardon if i’m not completely up to date with many of the discussions ocurring in the different guilds. Full disclosure, I’ve been involved in 1hive since around October last year, and am a $HNY holder - that said, I think you guys should really check some of the products being developed over in that community, I feel like we really are aligned as fellow DAOists haha

Also may be worth mentioning since Aragon is mentioned in the post, some of the association’s members are actually some of the most important contributors to this DAO and have developed a decentralized Dispute Resolution Protocol called Celeste, amongst other cool stuff you can read about in their wiki.

I personally am not very familiar with the technicalities that implementing these within the Bankless community may involve but am sure there’s some bees who’d like to have you guys onboarded :slight_smile: not really here to shill tho and it feels weird that this comment has gone this far, just thought it would contribute to the discussion and would be healthy for this community to consider several options regarding such an important topic.

Thanks for your comment! At the beginning, the idea was to anchor the duration to the different seasons. It is indeed a valuable solution. Nevertheless, due to the fact that the duration of the seasons is still not decided, we have indicated this period of time, in order to demonstrate commitment for the role

1 Like

Hi, great initiative! I agree that it is awesome to have clarity around who to turn to in times of tricky communication.

I do see a risk that the ombudsmen will have time to accumulate a lot of privileged information and that becomes increasingly more easy to correlate as time passes. I suggest lowering it to six months or a seasonal approach, and also work out which way the ombudsmen are to be chosen and what would incur exclusion.

Which process will they follow or which value structure will they relate to when making decisions that limit (f ex mute) someone? I’m all for the “ranger” or “peace officer” role who can disarm a heated situation and support those who’s voice is drowned out but it’s important that it is predictable so we can avoid group think.

1 Like

Thanks for your reply.

Can you explain why the information would be privileged?

As to the other points, it would be of course possible to anchor the duration of the Ombuds to the seasons. The problem is that we still don’t know the duration of Season 1. At any rate, 6 months would also be a proper amount of time to guarantee the seriousness of the commitment.

The members of the Ombuds will be 5 and they will be selected by the community through a vote. The values will the values of the DAO. References can be found on notion under mission/vision/values.

Please consider that the “decision” of the Ombuds will be a mere recommendation without binding character.

Sure. I just mean that they would get to know inconvenient facts and undercurrents of drama and that could become reasons for bias or abuse. 6 months should be fine. :slight_smile:

Yes, this may happen. It would be part of the Ombuds functions. Neverthess, due to the nature of the office, “a committee of 5”, I frankly don’t see many risks of abuses.

1 Like

Thank you for proposing this. A step toward egalitarian representation and inter-dao emotional security. Well played!

Moving to archive. Please reply to reopen.

I wanted to consider this from a perspective two years after the fact.

It seems like ombuds did not get the autonomy, or the impact that was intended intially.