[METIP #17] Adopting MetricsDAO Contractor Policy

I reviewed the summary of changes shared on Discord on May 9th, 2023m and the MDAO Contractor Policy Replaced Language that was linked above (presuming that’s the latest official policy draft).

Hey Marina, I’m sorry about my communication, but I think there might’ve been a little confusion here. The “MDAO CONTRACTOR POLICY” is the original document given to us. “MDAO Contractor Policy Replaced Language” is a document I created and posted on April 12th here and in Discord. We’ve sent two documents to legal since then, the second being what you saw in Discord on May 9th. There was a first round of feedback posted there and in this thread on April 24th. Edited both of those into the original post just now.

I think most of your comments still apply, but just wanted to clarify that.

What are tools - only equipment like laptops and phones etc.? Or also subscriptions, accounts and logins etc.? Anything else? Can this be defined in the contractor policy directly?

Will ask, my understanding for now is that we can try to define these things vaguely but should stay away from specifics.

The MetricsDAO constitution currently does not enable a contractor to propose a change through governance, though. A contributor (defined as a contributor badge holder) can.

Alternatively, contractor policy would need to mention that a contractor gets a contributor badge, erasing the distinction between the two categories from the governance POV.

We can add it to the contractor policy but I don’t think anything limits us from doing it even if it’s not in there. I know we briefly talked about whether contractors should have voting power, with the limited amount now and the potential transition in the future do you think it’s ok for there to be no distinction from the gov side?

actually Discourse forum, not Discord

Yeah, we can get that fixed.

That would be possible on Discord, but proposals are posted on Discourse forum

Not sure this is operationally something we want to do. Tagged you in the reply to cryptofreedman for more context.

To reflect that I want to advocate for a model here that gives more protections to DAO builders (in this case contractors), not the one that has less.

Also want to maximize protections for anyone building here but I think there needs to be some balance in the legal language so that the DAO is also protected in some scenarios. I mentioned this in the reply above but in the link that was given in the feedback about indemnification, there’s mention of indemnification with limitations. I think we can work the language here to protect people as long as they’re acting in the scope of their work and in good faith without being negligent.

What the full list of documents collectively referred to as “dao policy” here?

I believe that legally, the only policy the DAO officially has is the bylaws. Unsure if we can make reference to anything else but will ask.

In the Contractor Policy Replaced Language 2.7 “unless it resulted from MDAO’s own intentional actions, gross negligence, or inactions.” Can the policy include definitions of what each these would mean?

Will ask but I think this is just standard legal language. Not sure that we’ll get specifics here either, and I think it might be worse for the individual if we tried to think of a perfect definition and ended up not covering something.

Can it be made both immediate or both with the same notice period?

This was answered in the first feedback round, we can change this to be either immediately or make both sides 10 days, up to us as we write this.

sounds much broader than the original language

This is just my informal language from translation. The legal wording that’s more restrictive will be the one that’s used unless we have changes to make to that as well.

Can there be mandatory notice to contractor?

I think this was covered under the response of: The “no notice” language is typically included to avoid a bogus claim that a contractor “didn’t know.” Am I misunderstanding your question?

Is Contractor Policy replaced language going to be the only official version of the policy?

Absolutely not unless I became an extremely bad lawyer recently.

I think just doing a general tag that should include them (I think @contributors?) is probably fair enough.

This took a bit of a backseat while working on organizational restructuring but to get back to it, we have one more round of questions being answered here: