I’m starting this discussion to bring up a topic that has been coming up within the ATF recently, as well as other contexts, which is how to flag negative behavior in the GenDAO in a way that has a contained social cost to all parties involved.
Interestingly, until now, we have a lot of areas identified that can potentially flagged (check out the ATF flagging & certifying policy for instance):
- proposals being delivered late
- not delivered at all
- badly delivered.
In addition there may be cases where we might want to signal to the community a problem with someone’s behavior, regarding how they treat others, communicate etc (which I don’t actually see as falling directly into the responsibility area of an accountability working group). However, there is no clear guideline yet for how this flagging is done, apart from a vague statement that it will be communicated on Genesis communication channels.
Until now, we have one mechanism that we have successfully used once, which is the Hourglass proposals to draw the attention of the community to a certain proposal. Does it make sense to use this for all kinds of flagging?
So my question: what are good ways of flagging behavior in all the various scenarios? If you put yourself into the shoes of a person that is being flagged, how would you want this to be communicated to you? When does a flag need to be announced publicly, and when is it better to have a direct conversation with the person concerned?
One reason why I am raising this is that both the flagger (if they are a human and not a bot doing it, which may be a useful solution here) and the flagged person are vulnerable in this situation and I am concerned about doing damage that is not necessary to both parties.
I’d love to hear what everyone thinks about this, because it’s a critical element for ensuring the health of this community and will be a great input for the future Accountability Working Group.