When someone needs to make a decision, they seek advice from other stakeholders and those with expertise. Taking this advice into account, the decision-maker decides on an action and informs those who have given advice. Read more about the origin of this process and how it works here 1.
Small Impact Decisions - Peer to Peer Advice Process
When to use? During work flows when questions arise or guidance is needed.
Identify who has knowledge on the topic of your decision and who will be directly affected by it. Reach out to them individually. Either by tagging them on public chats or via DMs if you need a quick answer.
This process should facilitate day to day contributions to move forward quickly.
Medium Impact Decision - Working Group Advice Process
When to use? When the advice needed is related to a workstream for a particular working group.
Freely based on the concept of “quality consent” presented by A.R.Greene in her paper Consent and Political Legitimacy 2 1. Working groups are small enough environments to produce a positive governance assessment by its members. Decisions that are local to each working group can be proposed by its members and discussed in meetings without the need of Community Advice or voting tools. Smaller decisions should have autonomy to be taken by the ones closer to its implications without attention costs to the whole community. The decisions should be transparent and shared in the Community Call or stewards meetings.
Identify which working group is the most related to your proposal and who are the people who could help you the most, or be affected by it the most. Explain your proposal and what you need advice for, tag them on the working group chat on Discord. You can also add the topic to the working group meeting agenda for discussion and post on the working group section of the forum.
This process should facilitate medium projects to move forward without the need of formal voting.
Large Impact - Community Advice Process
When to use? In case the number of people who could offer meaningful feedback and/or be affected by the proposal is the entire community.
Describe your proposal clearly in the advice process section in the forum, tag people who you judge to have expertise in the subject and promote the post to receive feedback.
A proposal should stay open for advice for up to 2 weeks. After this period, it should either be marked resolved with updates, or moved to the proposal section to be sent to Conviction Voting, Snapshot or Tao Voting.
This process aims to steward the community to help with more complex decisions. There are 4 possible outcomes to the Large Impact Advice Process:
A Cultural proposal that doesn’t require funds might not need a vote and be resolved in this period of two weeks if there is a general feeling of awareness and acceptance by the community on what is being executed.
Community Advice is the first step for financial proposals. Once feedback is gathered and taken into consideration, a new and clean draft should be posted in the proposal section of the forum to then be submitted to the DAO. (read more in the Conviction Voting description)
Technical proposals and DAO modifications - even though this could be a case for Working Group Advice, it is important to post technical proposals for Community Advice so we continue to promote the technical education of the TEC community. (read more in the TAO voting description)
Community Advice is the first step for cultural agreements and practices that need to be ratified by voting. Once feedback is gathered and taken into consideration, a new and clean draft should be posted in the Proposal section of the Forum and then be sent to the Snapshot app for voting. ( read more in the Snapshot description)