[abandoned] Censure of interchain foundation for abuse of codes of conduct

During proposal 69, Jacob gadakian from national validators was threatened with a code of conduct violation by Billy Rennekamp, an individual who is ultimately funded by the interchain foundation. This code of conduct was never approved by governance, is unevenly enforced even in threat, and is harmful to the development of the cosmos hub. More information on this topic can be found here: https://forum.cosmos.network/t/icf-harming-gaia-competitiveness/6590/8 And here: github.com notional-labs/notional/blob/master/incidents/Letter to the cosmos ecosystem concerning the care and maintenance of the cosmos hub.pdf This file is binary. show original And here: github.com/cosmos/gaia Delete CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md `cosmos:main` ← `faddat:patch-35` opened 11:28AM - 07 Jul 22 UTC faddat +0 -133 consumer chains need rigorous protection from all forms of abuse. Vote yes to censure the interchain foundation for attempting to stop vigorous governance discussion and transparency. Vote no you do not support such a censure. Vote NoWithVeto to express…

Excerpt (1199 of 1454 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

NB:

I meant to post a third proposal – one that suggests that we adopt the code of conduct from status.im, but I am unable to make a third new post in a single 24h period.

I don’t think censuring the ICF or any actors makes sense based on internally consistent logic. Instead we should focus on a new code of conduct, setting up a body capable of such an action with clear lines of accountability. Furthermore I think the discussion at this stage about the past should focus on people taking accountability of their own actions without demanding the same from others. It’s a public forum. If people did wrong, the community will notices and this will undermine peoples social capital over time. When leaders accept responsibility for their actions their social capital grows over time. Let’s just focus on personal sovereign accountability and get the new CoC done together. Pre-proposal discussion: Use the status.im code of conduct for gaia-funded repos Hub Proposals The status.im code of conduct is near unique in its recognition of power dynamics. For example it places onus on leadership for accountability. Other than it’s prohibition of glaring, which I feel to be subjective, if that code of conduct were placed on the cosmos hub and then evenly enforced, which the current code of conduct is not, We could just have validators instead of…

Excerpt (1195 of 1315 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

We good. If we recognize that the contributors covered it as it is currently set up is completely unenforceable and likely overly broad, then we put ourselves in a good position to move forward.

For the record, as your screenshots confirm, I said “Your public behaviour points to the fact that we need a code of conduct”. This was in regard to inviting you to a Cosmos core contributor discord and had nothing to do with the gaia repo or the gaia code of conduct. I’m glad there’s an effort to update the gaia code of conduct but please stop accusing me of something i did not do.

I disagree with you.

That was an audience of 174 of my industrial competitors and you chose to have a conversation in which you called me a distributor of FUD, and stated that my behavior online points to the need for a code of conduct. This occured:

• During the debate on proposal 69
• After I’d spoken to you about the issues with the Interchain Foundation’s validators of choice, like this one:

Interchain Explorer by Cosmostation

Interchain block explorer and data analytics for sovereign blockchain networks.

I think your comments, especially in that light, were highly inappropriate.

Then there’s this:

I realize that you don’t see it that way, that you figure that those were, as you said, “drive by pull requests”. And… That’s the problem.

On the plus side, we’re speaking publicly. That’s a step forward.