BDIP-3: Article V - Interpretative Guidelines

Article V - Interpretative Guidelines

Section 1. Motion for an Interpretative Guideline. Any court member, at his/her own initiative, may move the DAO Court to issue and publish an interpretative guideline on any subject matter within its jurisdiction.

Section 2. Form; Drafting and Review. Upon a majority vote of approval of the DAO Court, the court member who proposed the guideline may start preparing and writing the initial draft of the interpretative guideline for peer review, further edits and final approval. The interpretative guideline shall

Section 3. Voting; Issuance and Publication. Once the initial draft of the interpretative guideline is reviewed and approved, the DAO Court shall vote on whether to approve the final draft or not. If approved, the interpretative guideline shall be issued and published in the appropriate section of the DAO Forums. If the vote fails, the initial draft shall undergo the same review process again and a second vote on the revised draft. If approved, it shall be issued and published. However, if the vote once again fails, the unapproved draft of the interpretative guideline shall be junked and archived in the appropriate section of the DAO Forums.

Section 4. Non-Binding Effect. An interpretative shall have no binding effect but it may be relied upon by any relevant party to guide any future course of action. Any act or omission made in reliance of an interpretative guideline shall be presumed to be done in good faith notwithstanding the fact that a ruling is made to the contrary in a binding decision or order.

Interpretative Guidelines would be insanely useful to describe any subject and the stuff the community need to understand about it. It would be great if DAO Members can easily discuss and probably suggest updates before or after Voting and Issuance :+1:

Does the DAO Court have the power to interpret the Proposal Jury’s IRG?

I would assume so, seeing that the Proposal Jury is a DAO body which is under the Court’s jurisidiction!

What does “non-binding” mean?

But what if their interpretative guidelines conflicts with that of the Jury’s? (Note that the Jury can also issue their own interpretative guidelines)

It means that the issuance is not a decision or ruling that is meant to compel the DAO or anyone to undertake a specific course of action. It is meant to serve as a guideline per se.

It would be really ideal if DAO members could readily discuss and possibly recommend updates prior to or following voting issuance, prolly.

Hm. That’s not a bad idea actually.

I believe there should have a separation of power here. Since both bodies can have their interpretative guidelines individually, they both function independently. Or let’s say some limitations/IRR that allow the two meet certain conditions. What do you guys, think? :thinking:

I think a limitation under certain conditions would be great. Both bodies are independent, yes, but it would be great if there’s a common ground for both of them.

1 Like
I think for inter-DAO things, the DAO court will always take advantage over any other DAO body since they handle the internal disputes.

Having common ground is something really relevant. Its just purposeful as both bodies are great factors of the community.

That’s a good point! A common ground where in both bodies can interpolate and decide on a specific concern. The question is, in what form would it take place? Another IRG? :thinking:

I agree with this! Since they are the ones responsible for resolving internal disputes, they totally have an advantage.

Thanks! A well defined scope for their powers and responsibilities would be great.

Sounds like too many IRGs, but better be precise and sure than to have a lot of grey areas!

1 Like

Yes! The last thing we want are grey areas that others might take advantage of.

You got that right. There are some folks that might exploit this. Better be as detailed as possible

As for me, amendments can be made if necessary depending on the current situation. :ok_hand: