CB.13:4.5 - Define a decision and challenge method people can perform

For the named class of decisions, make the following working questions answerable:

• Who can propose a matter and receive the relevant information?
• Who must have a chance to contribute before the choice, and through what accessible route?
• Who decides, under which result rule and with what required participation?
• Who records and explains the result, and who makes it effective?
• Who receives a challenge or a proposed amendment, including one against the decision-makers?

Choose the result rule explicitly. An authorised person may decide after consultation; a group may use an agreed voting threshold; another group may seek agreement and have a defined way to handle a remaining objection. State what happens when required participation is absent, the result is tied or agreement is not reached. Delay, a further proposal, a limited interim action and referral are different outcomes.

Make the decision period realistic. Give affected participants the information and time needed for the consequential choice, and define a smaller route for genuinely urgent matters. Any interim authority needs a subject, limits and review point. Obtain that authority before relying on the shorter route.

Separate disagreement with the result from a challenge to its basis or conduct. A review may examine relevant new facts, failure to follow the adopted rule, a conflict of interest or a decision beyond the mandate. Identify a recipient capable of changing the affected decision. If the deciding body itself is implicated, provide the agreed alternate, appointing constituency or outside arrangement.

Plan what happens when no qualified or independent reviewer is available. Obtain one by agreement, limit or pause the dependent decision where the applicable arrangements permit it, or return the unresolved dispute to the body that can establish a valid route. Do not advertise independent appeal while relying on the same challenged decision-maker.

Use ECO.7 when the decisions concern a resource whose availability or condition is limited by use or maintenance. It supplies the combination of access, use, upkeep, observation and adaptation rules. Keep those resource facts separate from the source of the right to adopt the rules.

CB.13:4.5.1 - An optional decision method for a small team

An existing small team can consider the Core Protocols’ Decider together with Resolution for its own authorised action proposals. Its members must first adopt the Core Commitments and the protocols’ full obligations. These include staying for the decision, constrained discussion, no Pass during Decider, and responsibility for carrying out Decider commitments made in one’s absence. Joining a community or volunteering for an activity does not by itself adopt those terms.

Use the complete primary instructions when performing the method. One action proposal receives simultaneous yes, no or support responses. An absolute refusal requires the proposer to withdraw the proposal. Resolution addresses a small remaining dissent when the effort is worthwhile. The proposer asks each dissenter for the precise change needed, adopts it or withdraws the proposal. A simple amendment requires checking that everyone is still in; accepting a complex amendment requires withdrawal and a new proposal containing the change. This supplies a concrete way to handle agreement on an action. The team’s mandate, resource permissions and challenge route remain necessary.

Select this option only where those participation terms and limits on discussion fit the decision. If people need to abstain from individual votes, explain their reasons during the vote or avoid obligations for decisions made while absent, choose another agreed method under :4.5. Do not remove such source conditions while claiming to use unchanged Decider. People can decline this arrangement before adopting it without losing their wider community participation.