Article IV - Advisory Opinions
Section 1. Request for an Advisory Opinion; Scope. A relevant party who seeks to obtain guidance or a non-binding interpretation of the DAOstitution, the Proposal Jury’s IRG, the DAO Court’s IRG, or any other rule or guideline, may file a request with the DAO Court for an advisory opinion on the said subject matter. A request for an advisory opinion shall include:
- The name of the requester;
- The relevant background, context or facts relating to the request;
- The specific provision, clause, or rule that is subject of the request for guidance or a non-binding interpretation; and
- The main issue or question to be resolved or answered by the court in rendering the advisory opinion.
Section 2. Acceptance and Voting. Upon the filing of the request, the DAO Court may immediately deny the same if it shall find the request to be inappropriate, premature, frivolous, ridiculous, and/or violative of the DAOstitution or any applicable rule or guideline. Otherwise, the DAO Court shall accept the request within five (5) days of its submission and shall issue the advisory opinion within fifteen (15) days from the date of acceptance.
Section 3. Voting; Issuance and Publication. The voting on the issues raised in the request for advisory opinion shall be the same as the ordinary process for cases involving complaints and petitions, with the exception that no relief, remedy or any binding ruling need to be issued against or in favor of a relevant party. An advisory opinion shall be deemed adopted by the DAO Court upon a majority vote and the same shall be issued and published in the appropriate section of the DAO Forums.
Section 4. Non-Binding Effect. An advisory opinion shall have no binding effect to any relevant party. However, it may be persuasive in the resolution of future disputes in cases brought through a complaint or petition.
Do I interpret this right? Everyone within the DAO can seek help from the court members prior to the proposal publication?
If that is the case then we have a genuinely accommodating team!
On section 2, what if there is a possibility where the DAO Courth wasn’t able to accept the request within 5 days of its submission. Does it hold a certain procedure or is it not too strict with the first 5 days mark?
This is a huge help to those who are planning to submit a proposal and are in need of assistance in some specific areas. Making it clear for a non-binding effect is also a plus. Truly, the team has been doing great in lending a helping hand to the DAO community!
It’s probably reject. The section said “may” immediately deny as stated:
Based on my interpretation, if it’s not denied immediately and is not accepted within the 5 days period, the team just probably had a series of interpolations with the request hence categorizing it as a special case. Correct me if I’m wrong.
If I understand it correctly. I think that any of the requests that are not aligned with the rules or guidelines will immediately be denied and the requests that does not belong in that category or pass the guidelines. That is where the 5 days and 15 days will apply.
So if that’s the case, prior to a request being fully accepted, the court may immediately deny if it is not considered compliant or aligned to the guidelines, or a decision shall be made within that 5-day period. After being accepted, that’s when the advisory opinion will be issued within 15 days.
Exactly! This is how I understand it.
yeahh that’s how i understand the process is going to be. it means there could already be reasons as to why the request will be denied. it means not all requests will have the chance to be reviewed by the DAO court.
Which is good. And also the fact that rejected proposals still have a chance to be reviewed again by revising it. It’s like they’re giving chance to those proposals.
That is where delays would happen. I think that’s also part of the reason behind the five days approval period. To give way for the review process for all proposals. The team needs to respond anyways.
Fair point! You cannot just ignore requests. At least you need to give feedback.
Honestly, the group has done fantastic work providing assistance to the DAO community. For individuals who intend to submit a proposal but require support in a few key areas, this is of great assistance. Making the non-binding impact obvious is also advantageous.
That non-binding clause shows how generous the team is when it comes to idea sharing. That’s one character you should be looking for in a DAO.
I think the team will still provide feedback for denied requests. That way, they are aware as to why their request for advisory opinions did not go through.
That should be a possibility. That way, any iterations can be made by the requestors. This process could lead to a future substantiated proposal.
I agree with you, pal. It opens up the freedom for a member to submit a proposal without being totally prepared and well thought of.
They will also have not just freedom but more chances to have their proposals eyed on.
How would advisory opinions positively or negatively impact future DAO court cases?
True! I definitely agree!