Financial Proposal: Aragon dTech Season 2

Hi Renee,

I’m quite disappointed to read your message. I can understand differences of opinion, even straight and plain opposition to criticism. However, I can not understand threats.

You are correct in saying that the people accountable and the organization responsible are NOT yet members of a DAO, but as matter of fact, neither are you nor anybody else, as the Aragon DAO is yet to be launched. As voted by ANT token holders, Aragon Network DAO Charter will be terminated 15 days after enacting the new Aragon DAO Charter. A new Aragon DAO, with a new Charter that will be voted during December 2022, will be deployed.

AA teams have been working relentlessly in: a) Designing the tech deployment of a new DAO with delegate voting system that is safe to deploy, in coordination with Blossom, b) Due diligence on the legal path forward, c) Prepare the teams to transition towards the new structure, and d) executing the strategy published here, with the first steps being the release the new aragonOS (already on testnet) and the new Aragon App (on mainnet Feb-23). So, quite a bit. Some team members have double / triple Roles, as they engage both in their regular workstream and also in the Aragon DAO Transition. I don’t need to enter in evaluating their professionality, results will speak by themselves. I’ve never worked with such a professional and high-performing team.

Whenever you refer to “growing legal liability”, please be explicit towards who and the cause for that liability. Otherwise, I’d ask you not to engage with threats. We’ve got enough of those as a project, don’t you think?

The core teams at AA are perfectly aware of the limitations of the current Aragon product offering, and in fact, it is the acknowledgment of those limitations that lead to our new product strategy. See also Course of action here for more context. If dTech detects a bug in the frontend or something that doesn’t work properly in the course of their work of MaaS, they should open a support ticket so it can be solved (AFAIK that’s one of the main functions of dTech and why the guild initially was created for).

Once the heavy work regarding the steps abovementioned has been done, it will be subject to Forum discussion and after that, token holder vote. These steps can not happen whenever you want. These steps can only happen once they are completed, full stop. And meanwhile, I believe that there has been a constant and steady flow of communications to all community members via the weekly Eagle and several forum posts. Could I have been more responsive in replying comments in the Forum? Indeed! But I’m limited to the lays of physics. I can’t extend the length of day. Therefore I must prioritise my attention to the responsibilities and objectives that I have for the quarter / year. Can this be cause for “legal liability”? I doubt it.

Fortunately, that work is almost complete. As of yesterday, the smart contracts of the Delay App + TAO Voting deployment were finalized, so we can start the audit. During this month of December we will put forward the new Aragon DAO Charter for vote, so token holders can express their support / rejection regarding the proposed path forward. The vote should be set in a way that token holders can have granularity in their signalling too.

Lastly, I’m a strong believer of exit optionality. If you don’t like how something is working and don’t feel aligned any more with the Governance Framework, you are free to exit whenever you want. You can always sell your ANT and join a community that is more aligned with your values. This may be a more productive use of your time other than engaging in empty legal threats and accusations of professional negligence (which IMO could be considered cause for a permanent ban), and for sure, a way more productive use of my time (or anybody else).


Thank you for your patience, we wanted to make this response a guild effort. Please find the replies below, hopefully this will address everyone’s concerns.

@AClay, @Ricktik6

We always believed that the number of tickets is not really as important as whether users can get relevant information. The better the documentation and instant help (#bugs-n-feedback and #questions channel on Discord) the less tickets we are going to get as people only raise a ticket if relevant information is missing or hard to find. We cannot do a lousy job on documentation or Discord just to keep ticket numbers up. The number of tickets in November was 107 but the new ticketbot feature in HubSpot is already reducing the number of tickets. The stats we were trying to get out of HubSpot was how much the new ticketbot reduced the number of support tickets as it gives quick and relevant information to the most frequently asked questions. When I was able to look at the stats (until the trial ran out) it was roughly 3:1 so without the ticketbot the number of tickets could be as much as three times higher. Additionally with maintenance and fine tuning we will hopefully reduce it even more. HubSpot (in the free version) does not give us additional info on the KPIs in our proposal i.e. first response time and resolution time and it works differently. We are still evaluating it (so we can adjust our OKRs and KPIs accordingly) but we ran into a roadblock with the trial version expiring and not being able to integrate into the AA HubSpot. In November the ‘Ticket average time to close’ measurement from HubSpot is 20,7 hours which is within the 24 hours in our proposal.

Predicting the number of user support tickets for the new App is somewhat impossible as we are not involved in the user/developer documentation creation so we do not know if relevant information will be available and easy to reach.

All this season:

Most active channel at Aragon is the Questions channel

dTech Voice Hours

Messages in the questions channel

Messages in dtech-general:

Most active channel at Aragon is the Questions channel


HelpScout went down after requesting payment fell on deaf ears and even if we wanted to we could not have paid the current subscription out of dTech’s budget due to the payment setup at HelpScout. So after a few days waiting for AA to sort out the payment we flip the switch to Hubspot which was cca. 10% setup. As discussed numerous times before using HubSpot and/or migrating to it is NOT in our proposal as a deliverable nor was it in our previous proposals. dTech has never had an ‘official’ approach to setup Hubpot.

We pretty much had to learn HubSpot and set everything up from scratch, replace the floating widgets on the website etc. We did not migrate over, we were forced to move as at the time we did not (and at the time of writing still do not) have access to HelpScout after its closing and revocation of access due to non payment. I am assuming that once the payment issue is resolved we will have access to all historical data. The question is whether it is worth paying another year’s worth of subscription for this data.

Also, as far as I could tell data could not have been moved over as HelpScout is not a CRM, simply a support ticketing solution.

This abrupt move to Hubspot was talked about in the AN DAO all hands meeting numerous times. Currently there are Hubspot tickets, Discord, the forum, and other smaller platforms such as telegram and the tech support forum. Most support happens in Discord in the Questions channel which is the most active channel on Discord, the dtech-general channel, Bug-n-Feedback, and sometimes spread out in other channels and DMs and groups that we are added to.


You can find ALL our End of Month and End of Season reports on our Notion page here under Operations → Transparency → Proposals, reports.

I agree having another forum is not ideal. This discussion has taken place multiple times already with some people concerned with posters looking for support not reading and just posting in governance sections. The purpose of the forum is to hopefully get issues indexed into Google so people can resolve their problems and further reduce tickets and provide a better user experience.


I don’t think it’s fair to say a user getting their 125k ANT is a measurement of success for technical support. We escalated the issue as it was a large sum of money and the Court smart contract error suggested a bug. I have confirmed since the EOS report Barukimang has been in contact with him as well as a few other people here so that was some miscommunication on our part. I don’t think there were any other instances over the last year where support has needed the time of core app developers. Before there was technical support, a lot of the core team’s time was taken up dealing with support issues, this was over a year ago before dTech existed. For this particular issue concerning the 125k bricked in Aragon Court, Mathias provided support for around 30 minutes so I don’t think that was the cause of your block.


As discussed before, dTech is doing way more than just tickets and measuring the success of the guild is not based solely on tickets. In Season 1 we have tried to provide additional metrics we thought were useful from both HelpScout and Discord to show more data and dTech’s activity but it was seen as “unnecessary” and out of scope so we stopped in Season 2. You can find ALL our End of Month and End of Season reports on our Notion page here under Operations → Transparency → Proposals, reports. All four End of Month reports in Season 1 include detailed metrics to which I linked at the end of the EOM report here on the forum.


Thanks for your response, bud!
The old reports included random stuff like # of Discord messages which I agree is vanity and unneeded.

Though the reports don’t zoom in on this one primary metric which no one ever said is “unnecessary”. On the contrary, there are people explicitly asking for details about it - i.e., how much spam (e.g., “cross-promotion”) are we getting vs. legit technical support requests, and what are common requests?

For this season, how do you track resolution time if you don’t know the number of tickets? It’s one simple metric and arguably the most important one for dTech.

I get why it would not be easy to provide if the question was “what is the TVL impact of faster support.” which would be some hand-wavy assumptions-ridden “calculation.”, but the question is pretty clear cut.
The number of support requests and, for example, how they map to the defined scope. Without that context, resolution time is a vanity metric

  • If resolution times go up because you help someone retrieve XX thousand dollars, we are solving real problems.
  • If resolution time goes down because all the requests are for things that only require a “not interested” response and/or are out of scope, do we need around-the-clock support?

If you believe that request (which has remained outstanding since August) is unjustified, I would be curious to understand why?

1 Like

Hi @SpectraCryptoVerse

Thanks for the response!

Please tell me if I am wrong/confused, but in the proposal on August 7 it specifically says Hubspot? See below screenshot:

If it was in fact in the proposal which I see, is there a reason it took until November to begin implementing? Let me know if I am mistaken.

Thank you!

1 Like

Suggesting the that there are no members of the AN DAO a mechanism through which raised capital was distributed this past year by the legal stewards futher underscores my questioning accountability and duty of care. As I am not subject to an NDA I understand why you wish I quietly exit. If I didn’t care about the success of this project, I wouldn’t be here

To be explicit I refer to product users in S2 that have lost funds through interacting with the product. As a foreseeable risk of not maintaining a promoted product imo they have legal recourse. Not a threat, just the way duty of care works.

My suggestion was to show some respect to the frontline members of this team. Support issues and ticket numbers are first and foremost a failure of the product and product maintenance, not the team who have rallied to support product users.

As I am not subject to an NDA I understand why you wish I quietly exit

Very disappointed to read this. The way you write seems to imply that I have some kind of concern for you “disclosing” sensitive, dark and evil information. I really don’t care whether you want to exit quietly or loudly, with or without NDA. Do as you wish, really. You’ve lost all credibility to me.

All I ask is for you to simply stop bullying AA team members, or making empty legal threats. You have a strange way of showing respect by attacking others, and this is not the first time you are openly hostile against AA team members in public or private spaces.

FYI: dTech’s main initiative is precisely to provide Maintenance as a Service for legacy and new products. That’s why the guild was funded in the first place. So not really getting your argument here.


@SpectraCryptoVerse many thanks for your detailed report and answers to the questions we have raised.
I agree with you and others that numbers like “messages in #questions” or “hours spent in dTech voice channel” aren’t a help at all.
Would it be possible to track the support requests in these channels for the next season? A simple Google form would do that the support fills out once a request is completed.
This way you and we have more accurate numbers on support requests aka tickets for the next report.

As asked in my previous post. Could I get a better look into MaS and what work is currently being done there? Because in notion there are 0 tasks in progress.

When I checkout the MaS project in Jira I see some tasks in progress (Goerli changes that are unassigned are currently on my to-do list as a DevOps engineer). And 1/3 of all tasks were done or are being done by core members (not including the 3 “add goerli support …” that are unassigned but in progress).


If this is a regular occurrence then this is definitely an issue. However, if this is the only issue in the past 12 months (since dTechs inception) to be forwarded to the core team then I would say good job.

I get on average around every 2-3 months requests from dTech (mainly @barukimang ) to resolve issues mostly in Client. Idk if it is my role as DevOps or as Core Dev.

Hej Mathias,

Saw that your questions on Mas Software Support had not been fully answered yet, so here some more clarification:

Question: What are the processes in Mas?

The general Mas process is described in the third heading on this page:

For product bugs we have a process for Aragon Legacy Products and another process for the new Aragon App:

Process Aragon Legacy Product bugs has 4 statuses:

  1. Discovered: can be by a user reporting it to us through Discord or Hubspot or dTech members finding bugs themselves
  2. Being fixed: if a bug has a severity status >= 4 then we look into fixing the issue immediately ourselves by creating a PR. If we lack the technical knowhow to fix the issue we escalate the issue to the ‘repo owner’ using this Jira Board. Note: some high priority issues are immediately reported at the Jira Board
  3. Fixed!: issues which have been fixed successfully
  4. Outdated: discovered bugs which were never deemed important enough to reserve precious time for to resolve

dTech members have started self-training on use of the new App as part of our Launch Ready Plan. Also dTech is doing direct QA for the App Squad with 2 complimentary processes:

Process bugs found during self-training (all credit to @Carla78 who did a lot of work on this!):

  1. Report: describe bug in New App Bugs database (scroll down on this page to see the database)
  2. Confirm: another team member will test and confirm the Bug
  3. Forward: if the bug is critical, Pieter creates a ticket at the App Squad Jira Board, and assigns it to Dickson
  4. Feedback: Pieter changes bug resolved status to ‘Yes’ if bug fixed

Process bugs found during QA:

  1. Report: create a ticket at the App Squad Jira Board and assign it to Dickson
  2. QA: when ticket reaches QA column, tests whether bug has been resolved

Question: So either there is no work being done or it got migrated somewhere and the linked Notion page isn’t up to date?

You are right the database for ‘legacy bugs’ was not up to date! I updated it:

  1. Discovered: 1/43
  2. Being fixed: 0/43
  3. Fixed!: 11/43
  4. Outdated: 32/43

Hope this sheds some :bulb: :smiling_face:, and feedback on how we can improve is wlcm anytime

1 Like

Ah seeing this new message now :smiling_face:

Question: Would it be possible to track the support requests in these channels for the next season?
Think @SpectraCryptoVerse can best answer this

Question: Could I get a better look into MaS and what work is currently being done there?
See my other response just now for details. You are right, the only issues in progress at the moment are the ones which have been directly reported on the Jira Board.

Now Ramon is gone, you are the only person I know off in Aragon that could solve some of the issues with legacy products. I know how busy you are, and that it is maybe not even your direct role, so that is why you see issues at the Jira board unassigned (am scared to assign them to you tbh haha).

So if you can and are willing to do these tickets, great! If not then I think we should perhaps get another person with the skills to do them since maintenance on Client will still be needed for the time being no? Wdyt?

1 Like

thanks a lot for the detailed replies. ^^

Sorry to be blunt here but then MaS is for me not “Maintenance as a Service” but goes more into the general tasks of dTech = support users and report bugs to the devs.
Because maintenance for me also involves fixing stuff and not only forwarding them.

Is there internal work being done to resolve the skill gap and start creating bug fixes also for legacy products?
Or is the expectation that the core team provides a dev to fix issues?

I guess there is some alignment between the core team and dTech urgently necessary.

Yeah you are right the name Maintenance as a Service can raise the expectation that dTech could completely maintain Aragon legacy products. This is not the case however since the skills gap is too big to do so. We can do basic fixes and updates as illustrated on the page, but IPFS issues or Subgraph issues are harder to resolve, and need the Core Team. Maybe we should rename the program to Software Support am thinking.

We do however exhaust the issues as far as possible, with debugging reports and support with testing so work of the Core Team is as little as possible.

Ramon told us earlier that the Core Team would keep responsibility for the Aragon Repo’s, and that inside the Core Team there should be clarity on who is the Repo owner. Am not sure whether that is the case atm.

Illustration: with the recent Court issue I tried to find the repo owner. First I contacted Facu for support (even though he is not with Aragon anymore). Couldn’t get a hold of him, so contacted Evan, and then again you were the one to provide the support :slight_smile:

Yes lets align on this urgently. We have our bi-weekly dTech - Product Team call this evening. Would be great if you could make it! Let me send you an invite.


The program has just been re-baptised to :sos: which stands for Software Support!

1 Like

I don’t think it’s fair to say a user getting their 125k ANT is a measurement of success for technical support.

If “support” means “Maintenance as a Service” then I think it didn’t succeed. But we understand that “support” means reading and handling incoming tickets, then that’s a completely different scenario, expectations, roles, responsibilities, resource allocation, etc. Let’s define things well, as some people have already proposed above.

Mathias provided support for around 30 minutes so I don’t think that was the cause of your block

Mathias can speak for himself, but but face to them team he wasn’t able to unblock Core/App for one afternoon and part of the following morning. Meanwhile, a cross-team blocking task which could only be resolved by him had to wait.

For the record. Page 11 of the current version of the Charter states:

Our Standards
Examples of behaviour that contributes to a positive environment for our community include:

Assuming good intentions and demonstrating empathy and kindness toward other people.
Being respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
Giving and gracefully accepting constructive feedback.
• Proactively taking responsibility.
• Clearly communicating if we might fail to uphold responsibility, working to avoid or repair negative consequences on others, adequately apologizing with the affected parties, and learning from the experience.
• Focusing on what is best not just for us as individuals, but for the overall community.
• Embodying the values of the Aragon Manifesto.

Examples of unacceptable behaviour include:

• Selling or renting votes.
Trolling, insulting or derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks.
Public or private harassment, including stalking or repeated unwanted contact, including nonconsensual sexual attention, sexualized language or imagery, or advances of any kind.
Misleading or passive-aggressive comments.
• Publishing others’ private information, including personal identifiable information such as a physical address or email address, without their explicit permission.
• Hate speech such as promotes violence or hatred against people based on characteristics like
race, ethnicity, national origin, caste, religion, disability, disease, age, sexual orientation, gender,
or gender identity.
• Doing any unlawful purpose or in furtherance of illegal activities.
• Spam (unsolicited off-topic messages, especially commercial in nature).

@lee0007 There is a reported pattern of sustained inappropriate behaviour against core contributors of the AA. This is a warning, but the next violation will be a permanent ban.

This is not saying we cannot challenge each others ideas, but we must do so in a way that is respectful to all parties involved. We can have challenging conversations in ways that don’t involve threats (whether those be direct or indirect) or aggressive vocabulary. Any time a conversation goes this route and someone starts being combative it takes away from the point at hand while also discouraging others from participating. We’ve had multiple meetings in the AN DAO about this problem in the past, yet the same people who were complaining about this type of behavior are now the same ones being aggressive. Please keep the conversation civil. Thank you.


Just for a quick follow up for anyone following along. I met with @barukimang and some members of our product development team in some different calls and we discussed potential solutions to approach this more proactively. The current suggestion is to bring in a part or full time dedicated engineer into the core team to resolve some of the more demanding issues. In the immediate future, let’s just keep the communication open between the parties involved so that any escalations get properly triaged. :pray:


Being that one of those rules is Being respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences. Can you specify/quote please which comments you refer to as “…involving threats (whether those be direct or indirect) or aggressive vocabulary…” to clarify which rules you believe they are in violation of? Discourse indicates that my involvement in this forum is respected, which typically is a result of showing respect for others Respected badge on Aragon Community Forum

This is statement for this violation. However, this final warning is a result of your behavior over the last 6-8 months not only this statement. Previous behavior in the forum doesnt allow you to say whatever you want, however you want. No one is asking you to stop asking questions, proposing solutions/issues, etc. Your professional viewpoint is valued and respected.

The issue is the how you are doing it.

You have not been assuming good intentions or demonstrating empathy or kindness (especially in regards to the the AA) and this has resulted in people feeling as though you are repeatedly personally attacking them resulting in public harassment.

As previously stated, this has been going on for the last 6-8 months and we have been letting it go because of the respect you’ve earned within the community.

However, enough is enough.

If you would like to continue to participate please do so in a civil manner. Assuming best intentions and treating people with respect. Otherwise it will result in a permanent ban. Not only on the forum but on all platforms associated with Aragon (i.e. Discord, Telegram, Discourse, etc.)

As one of the most active participants in this forum I understand first-hand the challenges of communicating here and am aware that I make mistakes. Yet, Discourse indicates that my involvement in this forum is respected, which typically is a result of showing respect for others over the long term.

To date, I have never received even one notice via discourse that posts were flagged for moderation, hidden or subject to removal a design mechanism within discourse to provide contributors with the opportunity to rectify miscommunication. A process also reflected in the Charter Code of Conduct pgs 12-13

If/when I am in breach of the Code of Conduct I would like to have known and hoped the community would flag such behaviour. Thank you for highlighting the following issue

While I recognise my perspective is different, and that people often disagree or misinterpret my meaning I take considerable care to be civil in this forum. The team should be well aware that I am not a lawyer, I am not “threatening” legal action I was simply highlighting the potential and increasing risks of legal liability (people literally pay lawyers to do the same thing) furthermore I explicitly stated my concerns when clarification was requested

Can you clarify please how warning people about lack of accountability and duty of care is a breach of the code of conduct? Which rule was violated?

Now you have highlighted my well-intended directness as a sustained, yet undisclosed issue? Which is serious. As an admin, you are responsible to adhere to the process provided in the Charter for dealing with breaches.

The first step is typically correction as it is inherent in the process that administrators communicate which rules are breached and provide opportunities for people to modify their behaviour before banning participation, as now indicated.

Temporary Ban
Community Impact: A serious violation of community standards, including sustained inappropriate behavior.

Permanent Ban
Community Impact: Demonstrating a pattern of violation of community standards, including sustained inappropriate behaviour, harassment of an individual, or aggression toward or disparagement of classes of individuals. Vote-selling or vote-renting classifies for a permanent ban

I trust you recognise that the single issue highlighted above in terms of the Charter does not constitute grounds for banning anyone. Instead, you’ve indicated banning is a result of cumulative behaviour of which I was not warned. In order to understand which behaviour are pending serious violation or a pattern of violation can you please specify

  1. the posts that are flagged for administrator intervention that you intend to delete? I am aware only that your attention was called here and trust that everyone is subject to equal treatment under this code of conduct
  2. What rules were contravened by my actions in this series of 6-8 months of behaviour?

I trust anyone reading this might recognise that it seems concerning that one or more people are keeping a quiet (vs public) record against others, not communicating or flagging breaches to the code of conduct to provide a timely opportunity for people to address and modify behaviour. Denying others the opportunity to address specified concerns seems to contravene the spirit of having a Code of Conduct and a multi-stage process for dealing with breaches.

Due to the level/seriousness of the accusations, I request clarification of all these 6-8 months of public behaviour" via a separate public forum post so that they can be highlighted, discussed in the open and understood. I seek transparency for the public record the action and grounds you hold against me that justify escalation to banning. Perhaps others can learn from the process and the many mistakes it is indicated I have made in breach of the code of conduct.

1 Like

In the beginning of S1 it was suggested by AA that (since S2 was our second proposal with the ESD) for the next season - when the proposal is for the Main DAO and it will be a vote - token holders may not be familiar with the work and community involvement of dTech. A big part of the technical support that dTech has provided and is providing passes through Discord. At the beginning of S1 it was suggested by AA to provide some metrics to share with token holders and the community. For transparency and to showcase consistency, commitment and work done in S1 we started collecting and publishing data from Discord. If there are different metrics that can be much more significant or other ways to measure the support provided on discord, please feel free to suggest us. Happy to improve.

Apart from the Discord stats I have included a number of detailed pages from HelpScout related to our KPIs in our proposal including resolution time and the number of tickets. Average resolution time was calculated by HelpScout and is calculated differently in HubSpot. We are still in the process of setting up metrics to measure resolution time as close as possible. This depends mainly on our HubSpot subscription which is yet to be determined as the current subscription has a set of basic functionalities but no advanced features or date.

Other enquiries vs Genuine support tickets is about 1-3% (although this is just a general feel of guild members as this metric was not measured due to other metrics being prioritised; it can be measured from now on if needed) and common issues were highlighted and shared with the dev team. Documentation updated with the new issues so hopefully they would come up less often and the users can try to resolve the issue themselves following documentation. Despite these steps some common issues (e.g. the blue screen loading problem) do come up regularly. As explained before in HubSpot these are dealt differently with the ticketbot.

1 Like

I suspect from the boldface that you are indicating/suggesting you have evidence of my actions that are derogatory that amount to personal attacks, harassment, and repeated unwanted contact, possibly amongst others…

These are serious allegations made in public. Out of respect for you @Shawncubbedge I need to highlight that such allegations can be legally construed as defamatory. Again I am not a lawyer, however, an attack on my good character makes this personal for me and a matter on which I may now need to seek legal advice.

Defamation is the act of communicating to a third party false statements about a person, place or thing that results in damage to its reputation . It can be spoken (slander) or written (libel). It constitutes a tort or a crime.

So I would ask please @Shawncubbedge and those encouraging him to pursue this course of action, that you proceed with the utmost care and ensure you are fully aware of and understand the extent of the legal repercussions for the public process you have initiated.

I typically would have directly messaged you this information and my request for caution but given the allegations, and my intent to defend my reputation against these accusations public transparency of the truth is (typically) the best path forward.

@Shawncubbedge are you willing to withdraw your unsubstantiated accusations and follow the Charter process which is the first correction? Following the process could have prevented a situation where my character is being called to question sans a process and evidence required to substantiate these accusations.

As my record in this forum shows, I am open to feedback and routinely civil and respectful. I am happy to correct the course here but please know that highlighting legal concerns is because my good character is threatened. You know me, Shawn, you don’t need to like or even respect me but you probably should respect the legislation that obligates and the norms that guide us

“…Do unto others as you would have them do unto you…”

As the accusations currently stand you will need to either 1) remove or 2) substantiate as true honest opinions your accusations to avoid defamation. Please recognise that 2) only risks further substantiating defamation and I do not see that as the best path forward. Your call

Instead, I would suggest we avoid escalating this further by 1) removing unsubstantiated accusations and 2) adhering to the Charter process, which is to revert to stage 1 correction - identify and id requird delete the offending posts and communicate how the Code of Conduct was breached and 3) recommend action to rectify. I can then respond based on the process, which is in place to protect us all

1 Like