Continued…
8. Methodology and Limitations
Click to Expand: Methodology and Limitations
Methodology
Scoping & Framework Development. We adopted a dual-anchor framework:
-
Institutional anchors for transparency, accountability, due process, and cultural awareness (Brookings; Transparency International; Global Fund; UNESCO).
-
Scholarly / governance anchors for online communities and DAOs (Schneider’s Governable Spaces; Tan-Angeris-Chitra-Karger on web3 constitutions; OECD digital-government standards; CIGI on platform governance; AI-ethics work by Gabriel and Transcend).
Evidence Gathering. We compiled normative signals from NEAR’s community artifacts (e.g., Community Etiquette) to capture ecosystem values and actionable norms for off-chain venues. We then tied each CoC section to specific evidence and precedents in an internal “Evidence-to-Policy Mapping,” documenting how provisions map to legitimacy, transparency, proportionality, and due process.
Comparative Analysis. We reviewed DAO and community codes (Uniswap, Arbitrum, Optimism, Scroll, ZK Nation) alongside mature open-source exemplars (Contributor Covenant, Django, Creative Commons). The analysis highlighted recurring strengths (civility, transparency) and gaps (moderation standards, sanction ladders, appeals, and multilingual/cultural competence).
Synthesis & Drafting. The HoS draft integrates the framework, comparative insights, and responsible-AI guardrails (alignment, oversight, contestability). Sections map to HoS governance values—alignment, transparency, accountability, efficiency, inclusivity, sustainability, responsiveness—and are backed by citations and precedents. The draft clearly discloses that it has not yet undergone a full, open community consultation.
Co-creation & Ratification Path. We use a smallest-viable-group → broad-feedback cycle with threshold checks and expanding circles of participation. When broad agreement is reached, the policy proceeds to ratification/use and ongoing iteration.
Quality Check & Iteration. A QC pass tested anchoring (institutional + scholarly), procedural justice (investigations, proportionality, appeals), inclusivity/accessibility, and AI-ethics integration. Feedback resulted in clarifications (e.g., removing contentious examples, tightening timelines/SLAs, acknowledging NDC as a past experiment and re-orienting to HoS), and in producing support artifacts (evidence mapping, design rationale, QC report, implementation checklist).
Limitations
Limited live consultation to date. The draft predates a full community ratification process across HoS members and veNEAR stakers; perspectives may be under-captured until the planned feedback rounds complete.
Source accessibility constraints. Some academic and institutional sources were paywalled or intermittently unavailable; where needed, we relied on comparable open materials and documented the mapping.
Evolving legal and platform context. DAO regulation, data-protection standards, and moderation norms continue to change. Periodic review and transparency reporting are required to maintain legitimacy.
Cultural scope and AI context. While we address cultural/jurisdictional diversity and AI-ethics concerns, the evidence base is primarily English-language and may miss under-represented perspectives or fast-moving developments in AI governance.
Evidence provenance for event inputs. Certain hackathon/program artefacts originated as “personal communication.” These informed direction but are less auditable than published sources; they will be replaced with public documentation when available.
- Primary Author: @HumbertoBesso
- Feedback provided by: Hack Humanity team, House of Stake Core team, @lane, Bianca (NF)
VI) Quick Start — What You Can Do Now
- Read the draft Code of Conduct text (v0.1.0) above.
- Vote in the thread polls as opened within each sentiment analysis stage.
- IF you have changes to propose Comment below
- Delegates: be ready to complete the on-chain confirmation (or signed statement) once the poll passes.
Some questions to consider:
- Are the outlined procedures and mechanisms appropriate for HoS right now?
- Does it provide clear enough specificity to judge whether a particular action is in violation of the CoC?
- Is anything you believe to be important missing? What other examples of good vs. bad behaviour should be included?
Call to action:
Help us harden the CoC.
Review a clause, comment, and cast your vote - your contribution determines whether v0.1.0 becomes v1.0 and ships as the Effective version.
Poll:
- Am happy to ratify, no comments/changes to propose
- Am happy to ratify, and I have comments/changes to propose
- I have a strong objection - please describe your objections