Please comment on this document here: https://hackmd.io/Fz9wTOc2QgaPR8QPD0agMw .

# Decision Tree

Based on the written [charter](https://github.com/lexDAO/Grants/tree/main#charter) the GC has the idealised process

flowchart
    Member(("any paidup
member of
LexDAO"))-->|election if good standing| Committee[["Committee (3)
(2Q termlimit)"]]
Meeting{"Fortnightly
Meeting"}
Committee===>|duty to convene|Meeting
members-.->|discord discussion|RfC
RfC--->Meeting
Comms--->|MediaKit|RfC("RfC
(multiround)")
Meeting-.->|EOI|Grantor
Grantor--->|success|Gift("Gift T&C")
Grantor-.->|failure|members(("members
& guests"))

_diamond_ = decision (participatory governance)
_circle_ = roles (hats protocol)

dotted = verbal/(external) discord discussion
solid = github record
double = hackMD public comment + github archive

flowchart
    Gift("Gift T&C")-->|hypercerts|Committee[["Committee
(fiscal adminisrator)"]]
    Meeting{"Meeting
(disbursements)"}
    Committee===>Meeting
    Committee-->|reporting|Gift
    Meeting--oEvents["Events
(sponsored)"]
    Meeting-->Projects["Projects
(spending)"]
    Meeting--xrejected["rejected
{process/posture/policy}"]

<details><summary>Justification not Excuse</summary>

- **Process** reasons might be due to missing a key step (no checklist yet)
- **Posture** is due to external conditions or insufficient internal capability such as members busy
- **Policy** would be it doesn't fit within the constituted purpose (normally final unless the DAO splits)
</details>

# Rules on Disbursement

1) the Grants Committee shall use court system patterns as inspiration when developing novel processes such as these

2) the Grants Lead holds tie-breaking power

3) the grants/response does not change the grants/request

4) the **decision** within the grants/response must be a decision on and about the grants/request

5) the Grant Champion shall be the primary person, and the Grants Lead shall be the secondary person, who writes the **decision**

6) the Grant Champion or Grants Lead writes the **final decision** after getting the other Grants Committee members' feedback during the **weekly Grants call**

7) the Grants Committee has an obligation to make the **final decision** quickly, and grants/response/README.md shall be amended as necessary to best meet this obligation

8) the **final decision** must be accompanied by a Committee member's **reasons** that show sufficient evidence that the Committee took enough time to thoughtfully make the **final decision**

9) each Committee member is encouraged to write their own **reasons**, which shall include a **dissenting decision** if the Committee member disagrees with the **final decision**

10) a goal of the Grants Committee taking the time to write out our **reasons** is so that our **decisions** can become automated, which would fulfill our evolutionary obligation to make the **final decision** quickly

11) the Grant Champion shall the primary person, and the Grants Lead shall be the secondary person, in charge of taking the steps necessary for the Grants Committee to make a **final decision** quickly

12) the final decision shall be put to a no-quorum vote at [snapshot.org/#/lexgrant.eth](snapshot.org/#/lexgrant.eth) within a reasonable amount of time for all Grants Committee members to discuss in a **weekly Grants call** and then to vote

13) the Snapshot voting outcome can change the **final decision** outcome, for instance if 2 out of 3 votes dissent

14) during the Snapshot vote, each Grants Committee member can add **additional reasons** and **dissenting decisions** in the comments section of their vote


The above is a variation on the [elected board](https://communityrule.info/templates/elected-board.html) pattern with [chair](https://snapshot.org/#/lexgrant.eth)+lead opinion requiring active majority objection (effectively a veto).

# Values

* fast enough turnaround by having the Champion (or Lead) move the process forward without other stakeholders being able to delay it

* promoting wisdom long-run by requiring reasons for decisions, which should also allow LLM to replicate discretionary law as much as possible

* constructive feedback to overcome failures. The RetroPGF is competitive (since everyone open-sourced considers themselves public). Failure is expected, but only final if you stop.

## Events /tbc/

Any guild member can nominate activity in discord [#events](https://discord.com/channels/682960432272506907/1199916459808260146)
- external events require due process
- internal events seeking _matching_ sponsorship can submit a short proposal
- internal events just needing the basic CC MediaKit without additional funds need not seek permission of GC.

## Rejected proposals

> [!Warning]
> What is process exists to learn from failures (successes can be repeated by duplicating)