Simple process with a high bar.
It shouldn’t burn up everyone’s time (better things to do than troll hunting, endless debates & appeals), also shouldn’t happen very often.
2 Likes
I welcome opposing views, it’s a healty sign and something I think we actually need.
1 Like
Opposing views about how we can make Zcash a successful project are good, but that’s not the issue here.
This is about removing people from ZCAP who simply don’t want to see Zcash do well. I hope we can agree that people who don’t want Zcash to succeed should be removed from the panel.
9 Likes
Below are my ideas for how to expel hostile/unconstructive ZCAP members in two specific scenarios. I agree with @ChileBob that the process should be “simple with a high bar” and hope the below is in line with that. I would appreciate hearing thoughts, feedback, and alternative ideas from community members.
Scenario #1: Process for Expelling Persistently Hostile/Unconstructive ZCAP Members
- Community Petition
- Create a post in the Zcash Community Forum (ZCF) to recommend a ZCAP member be expelled from ZCAP for hostile or unconstructive behavior.
- Provide support (e.g. tweets, forum posts, etc.) that demonstrates the member has persistently acted in a hostile or unconstructive manner.
- Encourage feedback from community members
- Review Process
- The petition will be reviewed by the ZF Executive Director (ED) or their delegate to determine whether to reject or accept the petition based on the allegations made, support provided, and community input. Note: The ED or their delegate are not deciding whether the member should or should not be expelled, but whether or not the allegations and support warrant the ZCAP being polled.
- Reject – The ED or their delegate will briefly explain their reasoning for rejecting the petition in the relevant ZCF thread.
- Accept – Whether or not to remove the member will be an item in the next scheduled ZCAP poll.
- Voting Process
- Three choices: (1) Approve, (2) Reject, (3) Abstain
- If “Approve” receives more than half of all votes, the member is removed from ZCAP
Scenario #2: Suspension from ZCF = Immediate Expulsion from ZCAP
- If a ZCAP member is suspended from the ZCF for a violation of the Zcash Community Code of Conduct (CoC), that member shall be immediately expelled from the ZCAP.
Reasoning for including Scenario #2: When I was reviewing the list of ZCAP members, I noticed that one or two members who have been suspended from this forum for violating the CoC were still active ZCAP members. My personal opinion is if a person is removed from the Forum for inappropriate behavior, they should not retain voting rights on the Zcash Community Advisory Panel.
10 Likes
Hey,
Can we help by drafting a ZIP ?
I agree that no one should be removed from ZCAP for expressing substantive opinions about the direction of Zcash.
Since ZCAP votes for ZOMG, you could imagine weird scenarios where coalitions band together to modify the electorate in order to get control of ZOMG. And we have to watch out for that, because a lot of money is on the line.
Also, a credible accusation that this is what was happening would undermine trust in ZOMG, which is essential to its continued existence!
6 Likes
Coming from a psych background, I don’t think the problem is the criticism, it’s the language revealing identification. So first, a red flag might be pronouns like “they” when you’d hope to see “we.”
Example: “We are really need to get our act together,” vs.”They really don’t know what they’re doing.”
And, second, distancing language and other verbal cues that might imply contempt (those people, etc. that community, proper names in place of inclusive pronouns). Contempt—disgust mixed with feelings of superiority—is widely considered a toxic emotion and a relationship killer. Unlike anger, a transient emotion that can even occur between intimates, contempt can be difficult to resolve. If pressed for time/resources, it might make sense to limit input from people over representing that emotion.
2 Likes
A naive question: what’s the threat being addressed? Is that certain ZCAP members are toxic in their expressions and harm discussions/morale/reputation, or that that are malicious and will abuse their ZCAP voting rights to intentionally harm the Zcash ecosystem?
I’m asking because removing people’s formal ZCAP voting rights will do nothing to solve toxicity (unless they’re so offended they just walk away). Whereas malice is a high bar for which I have not seen evidence here.
Inbetween the two, there’s the valid concern that if people don’t express themselves constructively, then they’re probably not listening much either, in which case they may at their best but flawed judgment make bad voting decision. Well that’s bad, but I think this is how democracy works, because (as they say) it’s the least bad alternative.
3 Likes
This is a terrific question. In my opinion, it’s less about the latter and more about the former; that certain members are toxic in their expressions and can potentially harm discussions/morale/reputation. In other words, they do the Zcash ecosystem more harm than good. These individuals are few and far between, and the standard should be high to remove them. But, it has nothing to do with whether or not they hold controversial beliefs and more to do with this: if you’re constantly trashing Zcash in public (in a non-constructive way) or suspended/expelled from the forum for a violation of the code of conduct, why should you retain your voting rights? There are a number of constructive members in the Zcash community who are not on ZCAP and would love to take their spot so that they can have a voice at the table.
I wonder, does this clarification help address @Autotunafish concerns? It’s not about opposing views, it’s about how you conduct yourself as a community member.
4 Likes
OK that makes sense, but I feel it’s not worth the cost of a ZCAP expulsion process (in attention, vibe, optics, and risk of abuse).
An aside:
There are a number of constructive members in the Zcash community who are not on ZCAP
The current ZCAP expansion mechanism will likely add these people soon; expelling others won’t expedite that.
3 Likes
Agreed. Belligerence can be fun and maybe healthy, but it has no place in problem-solving arenas where it distracts from logical argument and threatens cooperation—especially when it is serial behavior. Emotional intelligence is tantamount to intellectual efficacy. We have a code of conduct on the forum, can something similar extend to other aspects of the community?
Earlier though, I was speaking to detecting more than just personal challenges in expressing negativity. I’m more concerned about allowing people with harmful intentions toward the community positioning themselves to spread their influence and undermine the product (Zcash). Maybe if people tasked with governance also had at least a minimum stake (holdings, track record, something!) in the community, this could be deterred to some degree? Like a co-op?
2 Likes
I’m pretty sure I’ve got a clear picture and I won’t continue in your discussions about establishing methods to incentivize witchhunts, not gonna do it, block the person and get over yourself.
There is no point in opening a PR or a ZIP, its not a protocol decision it’s a Zcash Foundation decision. They are in charge of managing and administration of the ZCAP.
The development teams have better things to do than waste time closing issues that they have no control over. Please keep it here on the forums.
3 Likes
We recently published a blog post which describes a protocol for removing ZCAP members whose interests are not aligned with the Zcash community’s, or whose membership of ZCAP is otherwise inimical to its purpose.
As I wrote previously:
By incorporating ECC’s advice into the process for removing ZCAP members, we can eliminate the risk of any bias on ZF’s part.
A summary of the protocol can be found here.
Under this protocol, we will be raising three names for discussion:
-
Justin Ehrenhofer (@sgp). Multiple members of the community have raised concerns about Justin’s membership of ZCAP, which dates back to its inception, when anyone could self-nominate.
-
James Joseph, who has been banned from the forums for multiple breaches of the code of conduct (including creating sockpuppet accounts), and from the Telegram community.
-
Lillian Gish, who was added to ZCAP by invitation from James Joseph. We have been in contact with this person via email to try to verify that they are not a sockpuppet identity. We may well withdraw this name if we are able to determine that they are a real person who warrants ZCAP membership.Update: See zecretary’s post below.
5 Likes
Please accept this as my resignation from ZCAP. If the Executive Director of the Zcash Foundation wants me gone to begin discussions to remove me, I’d rather leave. The community dynamics here feel very different than when I was first appointed to ZCAP, and I think I’m no longer a fitting member.
3 Likes
Hi @Dodger ,
cc @moderators
Well this is awkward…
I am Lillian Gish.
I replied to your email request for a meeting, sent to my ZCAP registered email, on June 1, 2022.
Have not heard back from you yet & will assume you are otherwise occupied.
Yes James Joseph invited me.
I have voted with no problems using this identity in prior ZCAP instances.
I’m not sure why this ID has come under scrutiny, as the account activity has been nothing but polite & rule abiding.
Howard Loo has extended a ZCAP invitation to me, which I have decided to accept, under this ID. Once it is active, please withdraw the Lillian Gish ID. It is legitimate but the name has been tainted due to the suspicions cast here. Too bad. It wasted a perfectly good alias.
I guess the long & the short of it is you all are still stuck with me for now unless you decide to explain fairly, openly, transparently & as a majority decision …one would hope… why it is you believe after all that has been said & done over the years, that my interests are anything but aligned with the greater good of the community.
Old enough to remember when there was barely a community <3
Thank you
4 Likes
Justin,
I never said that I want you gone, so please don’t put words into my mouth.
As I posted above:
The purpose of raising names for discussion is to give the community an opportunity to provide feedback. In addition, you can, of course, respond to the concerns that have been raised. That was the reason I tagged you in my post.
4 Likes