Decisions carry a community mandate

Binding decisions — above all exclusions — rest on community support: a community vote or elected nominees applying agreed principles, never one person's discretion, because the group has no authority to compel compliance and runs on buy-in. Disciplinary action must be public and dependable enough that everyone knows where the line is. Whether voting is the most appropriate mandate mechanism is itself an open question the community must answer.

Deliberately left open

CF-004 — the tool's votes are explicitly non-binding sentiment signals; decisions happen in group forums (AS-009). The UI framing must keep that honest. OD-011 — who may change a guideline's status is TBD. OPIN-014 — voting's appropriateness is open.

CF-004 — votes are non-binding sentiment, and the UI must keep that honest

The tool's agree/disagree/please-remove votes are explicitly non-binding sentiment signals; actual decisions happen in group forums (AS-009). The UI framing must not imply otherwise.

If left open If the interface reads like the votes decide things, members will feel misled when a well-supported draft isn't adopted — damaging the legitimacy the whole governance layer depends on.

Options for resolution

Label tallies clearly as non-binding sentiment everywhere they appear
Explain where binding decisions actually happen (group forums) alongside the votes
Keep tallies visible but never phrase them as pass/fail outcomes

OD-011 — who may change a guideline's status

Who is authorised to flip a guideline from draft to final (or otherwise change its status) is TBD (OD-011), pending the admin-vs-committee relationship (OD-015).

If left open Status is the community's signal of what's actually adopted. If anyone with admin access can change it, 'adopted' loses meaning; if no one can, drafts never graduate.

Options for resolution

Reserve status changes to the mandated committee once formed
Require a recorded community mandate (SYN-036) for any status change
Define an interim rule with a mandatory audit entry until OD-015 resolves

OPIN-014 — whether voting is the right mandate mechanism

OPIN-014 questions whether voting itself is the most appropriate way to confer a mandate, given its known failure modes (majority over minority, popularity over judgement).

If left open If voting is the wrong mechanism, building governance on it bakes in a flawed legitimacy source — but discarding it without an alternative leaves decisions with no mandate at all.

Options for resolution

Keep voting but pair it with elected nominees applying agreed principles
Explore consent-based or deliberative methods (e.g. Loomio) as alternatives
Decide the mandate mechanism explicitly rather than defaulting to a vote

Where this comes from · 6 source items

This draft merges what the community actually said across 6 source items — every source ID is permanent and traceable.

GTC-033 Process for exclusion or decision-making on cases – how do we determine who decides with community support?
OPIN-013 We need community support to make decisions.
OPIN-014 Is voting most appropriate option?
OPIN-068 Decision making authority esp re: exclusion. When it comes to excluding certain members from activities, somebody needs to make that call. We can put it up for community vote, or we can get people (nominated by the community) who have been voted in to make those calls based on the agreed principles.
OPIN-119 Me – Need to have buy in as we have no authority, people do not need to comply
OPIN-145 This is public so people need to be able to depend on disciplinary action being taken by the committee - against Lloyd. Potential Lloyds know what line not to cross and can't act surprised if they face consequences.

Themes · governance and legitimacy · repercussions and exclusion

Your signal on this draft

Sentiment only — no action is taken from these tallies. You can change it any time.

Comments · members only

Comments and tallies are visible to registered members. Log in.