Adopting the Advice Process with a philosophy of seeking consent (vs consensus)

I think the Advice Process as described above is a really interesting approach @anna-marie and good starting point. At the moment I have a bit of a hard time wrapping my head around on how the “Informal information gathering → RFC/formal information gathering → PIP creation → Snap Vote” process described by @illhelm will fit into this? @anna-marie @illhelm could you (both) merge both process or integrate the later into the former?

Hey @pleasuredoing

Such interesting questions to explore the Advice Process through. Here’s my take on it:

The Advice Process is not for every single action to be taken by a community member. It shouldn’t been seen as a stifling ‘law’ that stops us from using common sense. If a small change was needed for the website - lets say that a piece of code had broken and needed fixing - then likely the most obvious action is to message the person who oversees the website and they’ll sort it out. Simple!

However, if what you have in mind is that someone has an idea about a significant change to the site’s functionality, then if they’re using the Advice Process it’s likely that their change wouldn’t adversely affect the functionality. Why? Because as part of the Advice Process step 3: seeking advice from specialists (which in this case is likely the person overseeing the website, and potentially other web or software developers), then any issues with the idea being sought advice on would likely be spotted before being implemented. That’s really the intention of the Advice Process, to utilise input to spot any issues before a change is made.

But let’s say that the Advice Process was followed, a change was made, and then issues occurred. What that has done is take us back to the start of the Advice Process and it’s really down to the individual who spots that issue. Obviously, if you’re changing code on a site and as you’re changing it, it breaks the site, then yes, the responsibility is yours to correct! If we’re taking on a responsibility, it’s ours to make sure it works OK (i.e. we take responsibility to implement our idea to the best of our ability). But, if the negative impact happens or is seen at a later date, then it’s the responsibility of the person that spots it. And if they utilise the Advice Process, they should seek advice from specialists, which would (seem to me) to include the person who made the most recent changes.

As I see it, with the Advice Process there’s two types of responsibility: 1. being responsible to finish what you start if you choose to move forward with your idea, and 2. being responsible to act and utilise the Advice Process if you see something that needs a decision made around it (which could include notifying others if you don’t have time/the skills/the desire to become responsible for something.)

Here, I have a responsibility to move this proposal through to completion, because I’ve set the ball rolling. But, once I have completed this task using the Advice Process, it isn’t necessarily my responsibility to respond to the outcomes if at a later date the Advice Process agreed here needs tweaking. I might choose to; or, the person that sees that it needs tweaking might want to take responsibility and seek my advice.

And no, there’s no intention to track decisions. However, if that’s something that you see the need for/would be a good idea, then using the Advice Process you could start that ball rolling as an idea :slight_smile:

Thank you! I’m so glad in particular that the diagram is helpful :slight_smile:

So, here’s the thing about the Advice Process - the outcome, i.e. the what the decision is of ‘make your decision’ - is going to be dependant on what the decision is being made about. Which means that creating a vote is not going to be the outcome needed every time.

However, if the Advice Process is followed, especially step 3: seeking advice from specialists, and the decision being made is likely to impact the entire community or make a significantly change (like here, with us implementing a community-wide decision-making process), then the advice being sought should point someone towards creating a snapshot vote and utilising the PIP creation pathway being explored by @illhelm (tagging you into this @ToBe). It should point someone that way because if someone is seeking advice about decision that is likely to impact the entire community or make a significantly change, then the (it seems to me) logical way to do that is to ask a team member, mods, Popstars, or the community about any steps needed to take.

It’s actually quite important that the Advice Process doesn’t become too narrow and specific in regards to how a decision is made. The intention with the Advice Process is to give a pathway to gathering input about a decision, but not to enforce any outcome.

The difference with what Will is working on is that the Advice Process is a very open but shared general framework on how to make decisions across the board, and the suggested PIP creation is a specific proposal creation process we can utilise as a community to (hopefully) ensure that we create the best proposals we can make. What I love about the suggested PIP process Will has been working on is that it utilises the Advice Process (gather feedback from the community etc.).


Hey @ThreePhase I don’t know what a Viva-style check-in is, can you share more about it?

I’d also be curious to understand what a ‘bad actor’ is, from your perspective? and where you think the Advice Process (any particular steps, for example) gives room for bad actors? I have my own interpretation of what you’re talking about but it would be helpful to hear what you’re thinking of here.

I suppose what I’m saying here is with regards to how decisions are actioned and what controls are put in place around that - how much autonomy will people following this process have and what checks will be in place to ensure that someone doesn’t get a bunch of advice and then effectively ignore it for their own malicious purposes, thereby allowing them to carry out actions on behalf of the DAO whilst looking like they have followed our processes - the risk is that if someone can pretend to be following the process without actually revealing what they are going to do they could (for example) procure funds from the DAO to carry out a project without actually revealing fully to the DAO what they are intending on doing by saying that they have consulted and gotten advice (which they are intending to ignore, but aren’t saying that)

I don’t know how the DAO protects itself in this regard, what controls are in place to avoid people damaging the reputation of the DAO by using the brand for something off-message, or acting as a representative for the DAO etc?

I don’t know if I’m making any sense…


Absolute sense!

So here’s my perspective on it.

I get the concern and desire for a ‘bad actor foolproof’ set of community rules/tools. Unfortunately, I don’t think any DAO has created a system that protects from bad actors. However, what I think successful (i.e. grounded and mature) DAO communities are doing is
working together over time to build up a system specific to their DAO that best mitigates the likelihood of bad actors not being noticed, with agreements in place on how to act when it happens, along with the cultural systems in place to create a strong community.

I see this working really well when the following are instigated:

  1. Utilising Ostrom’s design principals for stewarding commons, which both 1Hive and the TEC do:

Ostrom's Design Principles

This means spending time creating an agreed conflict process, which (IMO) should be set up by conflict management specialists, and graduated sanctions for those that ignore agreed community processes and systems.

  1. A strong onboarding system for new members. Things I’ve seen work really well are interactive and extensive onboarding forms (that share a community’s purpose, values, and goals), regular onboarding calls, working groups and other groups to join, and so on.

  2. A strong focus on cultural build, which the TEC has done exceptionally well (you can find more about it in the previous TEC link):

All of the above take time and a community effort.

Which leads to: I don’t see the Advice Process as being the right place to explore bad actors. I see it as one tool we can use to help us move together in the right direction but it should just be viewed as one part of an extensive system, to be designed by us.


Hi Anna-marie, great to have this information regarding advice and decision making process.
Having clear processes and guidelines outlined helps a lot in Dao’s work I think. Thanks a lot. Cheers,

1 Like

Seems like the way to go. Build faster with the help of the community.

1 Like

Where’s the best place for us to post our ideas?

Hey @mois It’s here, in comments, as those above have been doing. Would you like to share your input?

I agree with you entirely. Obviously if a proposal is made, there will be a lot of mixed opinions because our thinking is different. However, it will take consistency, suitable for everyone, so the Advice Process is really essential for us. As far as I know, the Advice Process has worked very well at Giveth.
Imo, it would be great to have more Community Call combined with Advice Process to get the best results for us

1 Like

Nice :heart: I have always thought that the decision-making process for deciding the decision-making process is an interesting process.

  • What is the relationship between this process and the Governance Process?

  • How do we ensure that people follow the advice process?

1 Like

Hahaha, I know what you mean. Re. these questions, you should find them both addressed in the posts above. The first in my response to amartin. The second in my response to threephase.


Nice! Is there any work done on conflict “resolution/transformation”?
I am sure GravityDAO could give us a hand

1 Like

Not currently. As a team, alongside the token launch and our first products, the team has been been focusing on putting the foundations in place for community members to self-organise around governance & culture, and all other aspects of this DAO. Soon the Gitbook will be ready to publish, the Discord re-design has just been deployed (which offers hubs around these different topics), we’re implementing the Advice Process as a shared community decision-making tool, and we’ll have our community calls kick-starting in Feb. We hope that all of these will help support a group (or groups, or a person - whatever’s right) to explore conflict and build a strategy, systems, and tools.


Hi all, interesting discussion.
Minor recommendation: could you list the relevant step numbers on the process flow graphic?
This will help members to explicitly refer to where they’re up to, eg “I’m at Step 3 in the advice Process and now ask for…”
This will also help others instantly recognise exactly where the OP is up to in the process and close they are to resolution.

1 Like

Closing thread as Snapshot was passed: Snapshot


Hey @BRMbm Apologies for the delayed response! Let me check on that with the person that designed it. I can see the sense in what you’re saying. I think they’ll tell me there’s not enough space. We’ll see!

1 Like

Here it is! @BRMbm This is the version I’ll add to the handbook.