0xd0fe2019…4331sent to0xb024ac5a…a016·#21,581,082·view on Etherscan
# Discrete Change Proposal - Streamlining Adopted Guidance's Change Process
### Background
The current Change Process for the Adopted Guidance involves a two-step (and two-voting cycle) process (see [section 1.2 of the Adopted Guidance](https://docs.m0.org/portal/overview/adopted-guidance/v1.00/1.-description-of-the-adopted-guidance/1.2.-change-process-for-the-adopted-guidance)). Initially a change needs to be proposed atomically via a Discrete Change Proposal. Once such change is approved, then an Executive Change Proposal needs to follow in a subsequent epoch in order to produce a new, ratified version of the document.
### Proposal
While this process is robust and offers coverage for when conflicting proposals might exist in a voting cycle, we noticed in practice that most change proposals will be simpler (or non-conflicting), and can benefit from a more streamlined path. It is proposed that the change process be updated to include a path where the proposer can identify the change and submit a new version of the document on the same Discrete Change Proposal, thus removing the need for 2 voting cycles for ratification.
### Change
**Section: 1.2. Change Process for the Adopted Guidance**
Old:
> The nature of the Adopted Guidance is such that it must allow for only one valid version per voting epoch to be agreed upon. This poses a specific challenge in the case where multiple changes to the Adopted Guidance are being voted on simultaneously within a single epoch, especially since Governance requires the ability to accept or reject each change separately.
> As such, the process of amending and updating the Adopted Guidance should be split into two votes:
New:
> The nature of the Adopted Guidance is such that it must allow for only one valid version per voting epoch to be agreed upon.
> In most cases, it is expected that a voting epoch will contain non-conflicting, Discrete Change Proposals which, if approved by governance vote, can be immediately put into effect. In such cases, it is expected that, upon executing the proposal, the new version of the Adopted Guidance (as specified by its document hash) is ratified and should be adopted by ecosystem Actors. While the physical act of ratifying an approved change proposal can be done by anyone, it is expected that the proponents, or the M^0 Foundation as protector of the ecosystem, will perform such duties.
> At scale, it can be expected that a voting epoch might contain conflicting Change Proposals. This poses a specific challenge in the case where multiple changes to the Adopted Guidance are being voted on simultaneously within a single epoch, especially since Governance requires the ability to accept or reject each change separately.
> As such, when conflicting change proposals emerge, the process of amending and updating the Adopted Guidance should be split into two votes:
---