https://gov.optimism.io/t/code-of-conduct-violation-carlos-melgar/6882/39?u=kaereste
consistent with our previous votes, we abstain in the absence of reviewable evidence. due to the nature of the accusation (doxxing), we have very little public evidence to review.
without commenting on the substance of his allegations or the related discussions, i believe what carlos has posted in his response to the coc notice with regard to whether there was intentional or malicious doxing. i take carlos at his word that he was only invoking these people's identities because (1) they were already public in several different domains, as supported by his screenshots, and (2) they were relevant to the claims he was making regarding connections between different organizations. i would however remind carlos that there is an extremely high bar of support and context needed to substantiate allegations like his. zooming out, i'm glad a coc council is being formed and encourage people to apply.
we have not been able to view every post and detail of this incident. this makes it hard to decide on the matter. this case makes clear that a different way of reporting misconduct has to be established. we appreciate that the foundation will publish a whistleblower policy.
https://gov.optimism.io/t/code-of-conduct-violation-carlos-melgar/6882/40?u=404dao
we voted against the suspension of carlos because the provided evidence was not comprehensive enough and the adjudication process seemed potentially biased. i believe in a transparent and unbiased system, and feel that this situation lacked the clarity needed for such a pivotal decision.
illegitimate process.
we have better things to be doing folks.
i can't believe we are voting on this. very happy we will have a council to manage this, this is not how these types of matters should be managed. this is some weird dystopian form of dao public humiliation and its not acceptable, it just creates more drama, wastes lots of people's time and creates division in the community.
Loading more votes...