Governance Protocol
Defines the full lifecycle of a collective decision — from proposal submission to documentation and appeal.
Download this template
Generated 2026-08-31 · Download all templates
Proposal Submission
How does someone put a proposal in front of us, and what has to be in it?
RCOS clauses 4.5.1, 4.5.2
Why formalize how proposals enter the system?
A decision process that accepts proposals informally — a message, a verbal suggestion, a founder's idea — has no reliable way to tell what is actually on the table. Requiring a standard submission format, filing location, and mandatory content fields means every proposal arrives with the same information, visible to everyone, traceable from day one.
How to fill this in
State who may propose, where proposals are submitted, the mandatory content fields, and how decision type is determined and challenged.
- <Operational decisions — handled by the relevant role holder per the Role Registry; no proposal required.>
- <Strategic and Constitutional decisions — who may submit, and on what platform.>
- <Mandatory proposal fields: summary, affected layers and artifacts, decision type, rationale, risks and mitigations, rollback plan, proposed effective date.>
- <Decision type is declared by proposer; defaults to higher-impact type if unclear.>
- <Withdrawal rules — when a proposal can be withdrawn and how.>
What to cover
- Which decisions need a written proposal at all, and which can a role holder simply make?
- Who may put forward a proposal, and where is it submitted so that everyone can see it?
- What must every proposal contain — for example a summary, the decision type, what it changes, the reasons, the risks, and how to undo it?
- Who declares the decision type of a proposal when it is submitted? (How a dispute about the type is settled is its own question.)
- When may a proposer withdraw a proposal, and how?
- Taken together with the steps that follow, does our process carry a proposal all the way — submission, deliberation, decision, carrying out, record and appeal — with no step missing?
Examples
Any full member may submit a Strategic or Constitutional proposal by posting it in the Proposals section of our forum using the shared template. Each proposal states a summary, its decision type, the agreements it changes, the reasons, the risks and how to reverse it, and a proposed start date. The proposer declares the type; any member may ask for a higher one, and doubt is resolved upward. A proposer may withdraw a proposal at any time before voting opens. Operational decisions need no proposal.
Examples, not recommendations. Your answers will be your own.
Review and Deliberation
How long do we sit with a proposal before deciding, and who has to be heard first?
RCOS clauses 4.5.1, 4.5.2
Why enforce a minimum deliberation window?
Rushed votes favor whoever is already paying attention and disadvantage everyone else. A mandatory deliberation period, tied to the weight of the decision, gives members time to read, respond, and surface concerns before the vote opens — so the vote reflects considered judgment, not speed of reaction.
How to fill this in
Name the deliberation venues and the minimum periods for Strategic and Constitutional decisions before a vote may open.
- <Where deliberation happens (forum, chat, meeting).>
- <Minimum deliberation period before a vote opens — Strategic.>
- <Minimum deliberation period before a vote opens — Constitutional.>
- <Expectation that members raise concerns during deliberation to avoid the need for re-votes.>
What to cover
- Where does discussion of a proposal happen — a forum thread, a meeting, or both — and how do members who miss a meeting still take part?
- How long must a Strategic proposal stay open for discussion before a vote may begin?
- How long must a Constitutional proposal stay open before a vote may begin?
- Whose views must be heard before a vote opens — for example the people most affected, or whoever would carry the decision out?
- Can the proposer change the proposal during discussion, and does a change restart the clock?
- How do we encourage members to raise concerns now, rather than after the vote? (Re-opening a decision is its own question.)
Examples
Discussion happens in the proposal's forum thread and in at least one general meeting, with notes posted for anyone who could not attend. A Strategic proposal stays open for at least 14 days and a Constitutional one for at least 30 days before voting may begin. The proposer must invite comment from the working group most affected. A substantial change to the proposal restarts the minimum period. Members are expected to raise concerns during this window, not after the vote.
Examples, not recommendations. Your answers will be your own.
Decision Execution
Once we have decided something, who carries it out and by when?
RCOS clauses 4.5.1, 4.5.4
Why tie execution to the record?
A passed proposal that never reaches the affected artifact is a decision in name only — the rules on the ground still say what they said before. Binding execution to a concrete artifact update and version-history entry closes the gap between what was decided and what is actually in force.
How to fill this in
State what happens when a proposal passes (artifact updates, version history) and when it is rejected (archive). Define a time bound for both.
- <On passing: how proposal is filed; affected artifacts updated; version history entry made.>
- <On rejection: where proposal is archived.>
- <Time bound for execution after a vote concludes.>
What to cover
- Once a proposal passes, who is responsible for carrying it out — the proposer, a named role, or a working group?
- Which of our agreements and documents must be changed to match the decision, and who makes those changes?
- How long after the vote closes must the decision be in force and the documents updated?
- When a proposal is rejected, who closes it and tells the proposer, and by when? (Where records are kept is its own question.)
- What happens if the deadline passes and nothing has been done — who notices, and who takes over?
Examples
Every passed proposal names one person responsible for carrying it out; if it does not, the coordination circle names someone within 7 days. That person updates every affected agreement and notes the change in the version history within 14 days of the vote closing. Rejected proposals are marked as rejected and closed by the facilitator within 7 days, and the proposer is told why. If a deadline is missed, the facilitator raises it at the next general meeting and a new person is assigned.
Examples, not recommendations. Your answers will be your own.
Documentation and Publication
Where does a decision get written down, and who can read it afterwards?
RCOS clauses 4.5.4
- 4.5.4 All governance actions MUST be documented according to Layer 5 documentation rules.
Why document every outcome, including rejections?
Keeping a record of only the decisions that passed erases the reasoning history — members lose track of what was already considered and rejected, and the same debates get re-litigated indefinitely. Archiving both passed and rejected proposals, with a time bound and a verifiable decision record, preserves institutional memory and makes the governance system auditable.
How to fill this in
State retention rules for passed and rejected proposals, what counts as the decision record, and the version-history update obligation.
- <All passed and rejected proposals are filed within X days of the vote closing.>
- <The vote artifact (e.g. Snapshot link) serves as the decision record.>
- <Version history (Layer 6) updated with every passed proposal.>
What to cover
- Which governance actions get recorded — passed and rejected proposals, withdrawn ones, votes, appointments?
- What exactly counts as the record of a decision — the closed vote, the minutes, the final proposal text — and what must it show?
- Within how many days of a vote closing is the record filed, and by whom?
- How do we make sure these records follow our general rules for documentation — the same place, format and naming as our other records?
- When is the version history updated, and what does each entry say?
- Who can read the decision records afterwards?
Examples
Every proposal, passed or rejected, is filed in the Decisions folder of our shared drive within 7 days of the vote closing, by the facilitator who ran the vote. The decision record is the closed vote page with the tally and the final proposal text, linked to the minutes of any meeting where it was discussed. Every passed proposal also gets a version-history entry saying what changed. All members can read the folder; nothing in it is deleted, and corrections are added as new entries.
Examples, not recommendations. Your answers will be your own.
Appeal and Review
If someone thinks a decision went wrong, how do they get it looked at again?
RCOS clauses 4.5.2, 4.6.2
Why make re-votes possible but bounded?
A governance system with no appeal route hardens mistakes into permanent rules; one with unlimited informal appeal paths never settles anything. Allowing any Full Member to trigger a re-vote — but only with a written, reasoned objection raising something not already addressed — keeps the system self-correcting without turning every decision into a standing referendum.
How to fill this in
Define the conditions for triggering a re-vote, the objection format, and the threshold/mechanism for the re-vote itself.
- <Who may trigger a re-vote and how.>
- <Reasoned objection requirement — a consideration not addressed in original deliberation.>
- <Re-vote uses the same mechanism and threshold as the original.>
- <Treatment of repeated frivolous re-vote requests.>
What to cover
- Who may ask for a decision to be looked at again, and within how long after it was made?
- What must the request contain — and what counts as a new reason rather than simply disagreeing with the outcome?
- Who checks whether a request qualifies, and how quickly?
- How is the second decision made — the same mechanism and threshold as the first, or something different?
- Does the original decision stay in force while it is being looked at again?
- How do we handle repeated requests on the same matter that bring no new reasons?
Examples
Any full member may request a re-vote within 30 days of a decision by posting a written objection that names a consideration not raised during discussion; disagreeing with the result is not enough. The facilitators check the objection within 7 days and, if it qualifies, open a re-vote using the same mechanism and threshold as the original. The decision stays in force in the meantime. A further request on the same matter within 12 months needs the written support of five full members.
Examples, not recommendations. Your answers will be your own.
Conflict Between Decisions
When two of our own decisions contradict each other, which one wins?
RCOS clauses 4.5.3
- 4.5.3 The Governance Protocol MUST define how conflicts between decisions are resolved.
Why predefine conflict resolution?
When two decisions point in different directions, someone has to choose which one counts — and if that choice is made ad hoc, it reduces to whoever has the authority or energy to enforce their reading. A fixed precedence rule (higher type wins; more recent wins at the same type) resolves conflicts mechanically, without a judgment call.
How to fill this in
State the precedence rule (typically: higher decision type prevails; more recent wins at the same type, unless explicitly locked).
- <Precedence: Constitutional > Strategic > Operational.>
- <Same-type conflicts: more recent prevails unless earlier explicitly locked future changes.>
- <Where conflicts are surfaced and how they are resolved.>
What to cover
- When decisions of different types contradict each other, does the higher type always win?
- When two decisions of the same type contradict each other, does the more recent one win — and can an earlier decision protect itself from being overridden, and how?
- Who may point out a conflict between decisions, and where do they raise it?
- Until the conflict is settled, which decision do we follow — and how is the contradiction removed for good?
Examples
A higher decision type always prevails: a Constitutional decision over a Strategic one, and a Strategic decision over an Operational one. Between two decisions of the same type, the more recent one prevails, unless the earlier one stated explicitly that it could only be changed by a higher type. Any member can flag a conflict in the governance channel; the facilitators confirm within 7 days which decision applies under this rule, and a proposal to remove the contradiction goes to the next general meeting.
Examples, not recommendations. Your answers will be your own.
Safeguards and Failure Modes
What stops power collecting in a few hands, lets anyone challenge a decision safely, and forces a review when governance keeps failing?
RCOS clauses 4.6.1, 4.6.2, 4.6.3
Why plan for governance failure up front?
Every governance system fails somewhere — captured by a subgroup, frozen by informal vetoes, drifted by a role holder who quietly expanded their remit. Naming the specific failure modes in advance, wiring in challenge routes that cannot be retaliated against, and requiring a formal review when failures accumulate, is what keeps governance from slowly hollowing out while no one is watching.
How to fill this in
For each named failure mode, state the safeguard. Include a trigger that forces a Constitutional review if failures accumulate.
- Power concentration: <how the protocol prevents unilateral authority above operational scope.>
- Informal vetoes: <rule that only written, reasoned objections submitted via the defined process carry weight.>
- Decision capture: <rule about quorum and openness of voting.>
- Founder/role entrenchment: <rule that no role grants permanent authority; founders hold no special governance authority beyond membership state.>
- Challenge without retaliation: <reference Layer 4 anti-retaliation provisions.>
- Persistent failure trigger: <e.g. three or more governance failures within X months trigger a Constitutional review.>
What to cover
- What stops decision power concentrating in one person or a small group?
- What stops an informal veto — someone blocking a decision outside the agreed process?
- What stops a subgroup capturing decisions, for example by turning up only when it suits them?
- What stops founders or long-standing role holders becoming entrenched?
- How can anyone challenge a decision without fear of retaliation?
- Which pattern of failures forces a formal review — and who starts it?
Ratification Record
- Adopted: <YYYY-MM-DD>
- Decision type: Constitutional
- Version: <version>
- Decision record: <link to decision record>