Visible to members of this folder

Advocates Oral CoC Protocol

(1) Issue Name:

An Oral CoC Protocol

(2) Issue Description:

Lack of mechanism for engendering & sustaining collective engagement in community values, CoC and reference for our consensus processes.

Legal & structural restrictions in conventional & written CoCs that are less effective for horizontal system design & long term web3 community sustainability.

(3) Issue Domain:

Governance

(4) Suggested solution, if known:

Reoccurring oral recitals as a built-in legal mechanism of our CoC.

Every so often we have a scheduled event where we collectively go over our community values, processes of organization, important symbolisms & celebrations of gratitude for our Stacks commons of innovation.

(5) Impact, if not solved:

Restrictions to legal & organization structures. Lack of clear legal and organization models that preserve community voice values in the long term.

(6) Artifacts & References:

Extitutional Theory, Invisible Economy, Generative Justice, Advox Longhouse Dialogue Recording

Further Issue Proposal Details:

While we can keep a written record as best as possible, we should include the legal authority of an oral CoC rather than the written record. This not only establishes a protocol of engagement to avoid a “terms of service effect” but it engenders collective responsibility through a legal point of emphasis.

This functions as a collective oral legal reference for consensus processes in our web3 innovation commons context.

Intertwining collective symbolism & oral recitations via community NFTs. Emphasizing the ability to read & orally recite what the symbolism represents as the actual legal point of reference i.e NFT symbolism for Establishing Advocates Commons would mean being able to speak to our important system design concepts, structures & efforts.

Harvard's Primavera De Filippi’s Extitutional Theory speaks to important bridgework between structures for community values preservation and institutional legal frameworks. Where institutions are akin to enclosures and extitutions are akin to exclosures. As institutions can enclose community away from core values for sake of the structure; and exclosures can protect core values from external harm.

Juliet mentions Primavera’s “alegal” language & recent findings at conferences highlighting legal importance of CoCs in DAOs. Hence in this context, was our realization of the unique “in-between space” oral legal mechanisms can provide.

A functional Two Row Wampum reference for our consensus processes.

This also means active matrilineal Native dialogue in our community & CoC.

This Native context ensures our social & ecological due diligence is built directly into our consensus processes as an applicable legal point of reference.

This also speaks to functional use rather than a mere mentioning of direct Native dialogue.

Not to mention the historical precedent for oral constitutions, the sustainability therein and internationally accepted jurisprudence for symbolism that is Wampum belts & the accompanying traditional oral laws. This oral tradition is even referenced in modern legal written documents. Giving us a complete picture for our own unique on and off chain legal framework possibilities.