Proposal for Annex to CDAO Charter: Campaign Rules and Guidelines

The purpose of this post is not to single anyone out or to insinuate any candidate in the recent Community DAO (CDAO) elections broke any rules or anything like that. I’m writing this post because there is no section of the charter discussing rules and best practices during a campaign for a position on the CDAO. Throughout the election, we, as a council, were met with several questions and concerns about a few different topics. An annex should be added to the existing governing charter (Community DAO Charter) to set a clear list of guidelines to be adhered to in future campaigns to avoid confusion and unnecessary conflict. I write this post as a current governor of the CDAO and will do my best to avoid including personal opinions, but decided it best to begin this discussion from my personal account so as not to potentially speak out of turn for the council as a whole.

As the CDAO council, we always want to give a voice to the Harmony Community and execute our governance in accordance with its wishes. In the remainder of the post, I will list a number of topics to be decided upon with a poll for each. Please vote for the options below to decide which rules will be included in an HCIP vote on Snapshot to determine if it will be added as an annex to the charter (annexes can always be updated, changed, or removed in future by way of HCIP proposal). We also welcome you to comment below to explain your opinion on any of the topics listed and/or to add any other ideas for standards that need to be settled. After a week on the forums, the items that earn a majority vote will be put forth for an HCIP vote to be added as the fourth annex (IV) to the charter above.

All rules agreed upon will take effect at the next election cycle and will not affect the current council of governors as they each were elected without violating any existing rules.

1. “All candidates will have equal exposure through the Community DAO, meaning all candidates will be given the same chance to participate in any questioning and/or promotion regarding the election at hand. No candidate shall receive special concessions or exclusions from the Community DAO itself. The only exception would be if a candidate refuses the opportunity to participate in any election related matter and is therefore not present.”

Do you agree with this statement and feel it belongs as a campaign rule?

  • YES
  • NO

0 voters

2. Do you feel potential candidates shall be required to answer a set of questions agreed upon by the existing council within their candidacy announcement post? These questions could provide insight to potential skills, experience, and availability as well as other potential traits deemed to be helpful for the DAO. The questions must be equitable and not favor any race, gender, nationality, or sexual orientation.

  • YES
  • NO

0 voters

3. Do you feel an individual’s candidacy announcement post must be shown support by at least 5 community members in its comments in order for inclusion in the election? Current governors would be allowed to announce their support in such a post.

  • YES
  • NO

0 voters

4. Should a candidate be allowed to offer any incentive in exchange for a vote (i.e. offer coins or NFTs, etc. to the wallets that cast a vote for that person)?

  • YES
  • NO

0 voters

5. Should a candidate be allowed to offer any giveaways as part of any campaign related post? (i.e. Should coins or NFTs be allowed to be given away for likes and retweets of posts regarding campaign related material)?

  • YES
  • NO

0 voters

6. Should a candidate being paid directly by the Harmony Core team as a regular contributor be allowed to fill a position on the CDAO?

  • YES
  • NO

0 voters

7. Should a candidate be able to run for a governor position with an account/name used for an existing Harmony project (i.e. should Defi Kingdoms be allowed to run as a candidate? A ‘no’ vote means you feel a personal account should be used). If this rule receives a no vote, there will need to be an additional community discussion to define the parameters of which accounts fall under this category.

  • YES
  • NO

0 voters

8. Should a candidate be allowed to spam Harmony Core DAO accounts’ as well as current council governors’ posts with unsolicited campaign posts? If a no vote is received, it would still be permissible for a candidate to comment with campaign material if the DAO or governors invite candidates to do so.

  • YES
  • NO

0 voters

9. Should a candidate be allowed to spam any posts of community members with unsolicited campaign promotions? If a no vote is received, it would still be permissible for a candidate to comment with campaign material if the DAO or governors invite candidates to do so. If this poll and the prior poll receive a no vote, a candidate would be limited to posting from their own personal account about their candidacy unless a post specifically allows for it.

  • YES
  • NO

0 voters

10. Should current Community DAO governors be allowed to campaign openly for their candidates of choice as long as it is done from their personal accounts and not any DAO accounts?

  • YES
  • NO

0 voters

11. Should candidates and current council members be able to share negative opinions/accusations of any candidates?

  • YES
  • NO

0 voters

12. If negative campaigning is allowed, should the accuser be required to provide proof of accusation?

  • YES
  • NO

0 voters

There is no doubt that different rule violations are of varying severity. With that in mind, the worst violations should be categorized as a level 1 violation and be grounds for immediate removal from candidacy. Other less severe violations can be categorized as a level 2 violation. For level 2 violations, the candidates will be given an opportunity to rectify their violation. Unwillingness to comply with multiple rules and requests to rectify the violation will result in removal from candidacy.

Please try to vote for each rule as either a Level 1 or Level 2 violation, but not as both. The option receiving the most votes is how it will be categorized in the charter.

***If approved, should any of the above rules be considered Level 1 violations and be grounds for immediate removal from consideration?

    1. Should a candidate be allowed to offer any incentive in exchange for a vote (i.e. offer coins or NFTs to the wallets that cast a vote for that person)?
    1. Should a candidate be allowed to offer any giveaways as part of any campaign related post? (i.e. Should coins or NFTs be allowed to be given away for likes and retweets of posts regarding campaign related material)?
    1. Should a candidate being paid directly by the Harmony Core team as a regular contributor be allowed to fill a position on the CDAO?
    1. Should a candidate be able to run for a governor position with an account/name used for an existing Harmony project (i.e. should Defi Kingdoms be allowed to run as a candidate? A ‘no’ vote means you feel a personal account should be used). If this rule receives a no vote, there will need to be an additional community discussion to define the parameters of which accounts fall under this category.
    1. Should a candidate be allowed to spam Harmony Core DAO accounts’ as well as current council governors’ posts with unsolicited campaign posts? If a no vote is received, it would still be permissible for a candidate to comment with campaign material if the DAO or governors invite candidates to do so.
    1. Should a candidate be allowed to spam any posts of community members with unsolicited campaign promotions? If a no vote is received, it would still be permissible for a candidate to comment with campaign material if the DAO or governors invite candidates to do so. If this poll and the prior poll receive a no vote, a candidate would be limited to posting from their own personal account about their candidacy unless a post specifically allows for it.
    1. Should current Community DAO governors be allowed to campaign openly for their candidates of choice as long as it is done from their personal accounts and not any DAO accounts?
    1. Should candidates and current council members be able to share negative opinions/accusations of any candidates without proof?
    1. Should candidates and current council members be able to share negative opinions/accusations of any candidates with proof?

0 voters

***If approved, should any of the above rules be considered level 2 violations?

    1. Should a candidate be allowed to offer any incentive in exchange for a vote (i.e. offer coins or NFTs to the wallets that cast a vote for that person)?
    1. Should a candidate be allowed to offer any giveaways as part of any campaign related post? (i.e. Should coins or NFTs be allowed to be given away for likes and retweets of posts regarding campaign related material)?
    1. Should a candidate being paid directly by the Harmony Core team as a regular contributor be allowed to fill a position on the CDAO?
    1. Should a candidate be able to run for a governor position with an account/name used for an existing Harmony project (i.e. should Defi Kingdoms be allowed to run as a candidate? A ‘no’ vote means you feel a personal account should be used). If this rule receives a no vote, there will need to be an additional community discussion to define the parameters of which accounts fall under this category.
    1. Should a candidate be allowed to spam Harmony Core DAO accounts’ as well as current council governors’ posts with unsolicited campaign posts? If a no vote is received, it would still be permissible for a candidate to comment with campaign material if the DAO or governors invite candidates to do so.
    1. Should a candidate be allowed to spam any posts of community members with unsolicited campaign promotions? If a no vote is received, it would still be permissible for a candidate to comment with campaign material if the DAO or governors invite candidates to do so. If this poll and the prior poll receive a no vote, a candidate would be limited to posting from their own personal account about their candidacy unless a post specifically allows for it.
    1. Should current Community DAO governors be allowed to campaign openly for their candidates of choice as long as it is done from their personal accounts and not any DAO accounts?
    1. Should candidates and current council members be able to share negative opinions/accusations of any candidates without proof?
    1. Should candidates and current council members be able to share negative opinions/accusations of any candidates with proof?

0 voters

***How many level 2 violations should disqualify a candidate from their candidacy?

  • 2
  • 3

0 voters

Thank you for taking the time to vote. Please share your thoughts below on the above rules suggestions as well as offering any additional rules you believe should be considered. This post will be shared across all CDAO channels and, after a period of 7 days, the results will be moved to an HCIP vote to be voted on for addition to the charter as one cohesive annex to the existing CDAO charter.

10 Likes

Does this also mean Project’s like a Validator?
What if you are member of a project now come up with a new alter Ego so no one knows his is part of a project? and may even use the Governance kind in his favor for his project?

4 Likes

I would imagine validators would not be included as a project, but as stated in the question, there will need to be a discussion on this topic after polling is complete to define the parameters of what this would entail.

2 Likes

I would not think the community would wish to exclude individuals working independently to better the harmony community. As an example, if this becomes a rule Pixel Pirates would not be able to be a candidate, but its creator Hodln Cauffield would be eligible.

#2. It should be offered, not required. If the person refuses, then we - as a voter - can take that into consideration and not vote for them

#3. This is arbitrary

#5. I don’t see a problem with having a giveaway for liking or RTing a candidate’s tweet

#6. What’s the reasoning behind being against this? To prevent them from being paid twice for the same work?

#7. No project names; undue influence. But that probably means no “Bob @ DFK” names either. Which also means no validator names

#10. I don’t like the idea of current governors campaigning for or endorsing candidates. That would completely go against the ethos of #1 “all candidates have equal exposure”. I don’t agree with the “from personal accounts” loophole, either

#11. Negative “opinions”? So if a governor’s feelings are hurt by something they’ll be allowed to slander a candidate without repercussions? No. I would suggest act like adults or none of them should be in the DAO regardless of whether they’re a current governor or a prospective candidate

#12. “Negative campaigning”? Aka “attack ads”? I need clarity. This sounds like a bad idea. Not interested in turning harmony DAO elections into trashy American politics

Level 1: Buying votes (but NOT tweets), endorsing/campaigning candidates (level 1 for the sitting governor also), and mudslinging

Everything else is level 2 or not a violation at all imo

5 Likes

Thanks for the feedback. I tried to be clear as to not express personal opinions on any of the topics, but decided to post from my personal page so as to not take any chances that anything could be viewed as an official stance from the dao. These questions/rules were all things that have been brought up from many different sources throughout this term and more recently during the election. I waited to post this until the completion of the election so as not to influence any results.

There is no right or wrong way to feel about any of these proposed rules. We just want to give the community the chance to decide what is important enough to be included. If you feel strongly about some of these rules you are encouraged to share your feelings and explain to others why you feel the way you do.

I believe you meant to say 6, instead of 5? Those that brought this point up made the argument that harmony intends to be separate from dao operations and that having someone that is paid by harmony might potentially be seen as harmony having an influence on how the dao operates. Again, not a personal opinion, but a point that has been brought up and should be left to the community to decide. I believe the VDAO has this policy and it excluded a candidate in their recent elections.

As for #7 (I believe you said #6 by mistake), there would DEFINITELY need to be a more detailed discussion about what should and shouldn’t be included under that rule. I believe the intent behind it was to disallow accounts from running that could managed by multiple people and leave ambiguity as to who exactly is running for the position. But again, this point, if advanced will be more clearly defined by a future discussion.

Thanks again for your feedback! It’s much appreciated.

the website changed the numbering in my reply and i didn’t notice :upside_down_face:. forgive the hassle of trying to figure out what i was actually replying to. it should be fixed now

i thought you came across neutral. my use of “you” was in the royal you sense of the word

#6. so it could be seen as a control/power or centralization type of issue? i guess that makes sense. how is “core” member classified? and if you want to prevent a core member from exerting their influence on the dao, where do you draw the line if the dao has to work with certain core members on an issue/project the dao has planned?

2 Likes

:pray:
Personally, I think collaboration with core members is essential and should be encouraged, but ultimately the dao is responsible alone for its direction and decision making. This point comes down to whether you feel having a paid contributor on the dao might potentially cloud that decision making progress. But the argument can be made as well that having someone with perhaps more inside knowledge of harmony operations could be beneficial.

2 Likes

We vote because we can. We vote to make a plan. We vote to show our clan!

DumpsterDAO is family with Harmony, come become family with DumpsterDAO

Here is our discord

Here is our web page
www DumpsterDAO.io

Matthew Williams, Co-Founder
18507562399