Re: CoC
Just want to restate my original suggestion from 2022 regarding a CoC, Bylaws, and other legal agreements.
Memorializing something as a stopgap is certainly better than nothing, and/or inconsistent rules made on an ad hoc basis. However, this CoC really is just as stopgap and a more encompassing CoC should be drafted by an independent and impartial professional.
As Slobo stated, there are and will be ambiguities. No matter how well drafted a CoC is, this will be true, it’s not a matter of if but when. While a CoC should obviously provide clear guidance and be as unambiguous as possible, on a case by case basis the CoC will need to be applied to actual sets of facts. That is a feature of governance documentation not a bug. Slobo asked the right question, who will make these interpretations? Who will be responsible for applying the CoC to a specific set of facts as guidance or even a formal ruling? Failing to plan for this inevitability is planning to fail.
In part, this is why my 2022 post included the suggestion of a legal subgroup. As the DAO has evolved and matured the need for an internal legal subgroup continues to grow more apparent and necessary. By no means exhaustive the responsibilities of this subgroup would include drafting, maintaining and interpreting DAO governance documentation under the MetaGov WG.
I’m hopeful the MG WG sees the value in having a subgroup of professionals with experience in these matters to assist in carrying out these important duties and the WG advocates for this longer term solution.