Decision_making
# Decision making
Last updated: 21.08.2026
Version: 3.4
At the Permaculture Network we use the advice process as our main decision-making method.
The advice process does not mean that every onboarded member can make every kind of decision.
Our governance principles are:
Authority follows responsibility.
and
Responsibility includes accountability.
Decision-making authority belongs to the person, project, or group that is actively carrying responsibility for the work concerned.
People making decisions are responsible for seeking appropriate advice, considering consequences, documenting significant decisions where appropriate, and taking responsibility for the outcome.
Another practical rule follows from this:
Decision authority belongs to the area carrying primary responsibility.
Being affected by a decision does not automatically mean owning the decision.
Decision-making levels
1. Operational decisions
Operational decisions belong to the people or projects directly responsible for the work.
Examples include:
- implementation details
- routine project decisions
- technical choices
- communication tasks
- event organisation
- other decisions that remain within the scope of one project
The Network Circle should not normally be involved in these decisions.
2. Cross-project or cross-area decisions
If a decision directly affects several projects or Stewardship Areas, the responsible people from those affected areas should work together.
Such a decision should not automatically be escalated to the Network Circle.
The affected projects or Stewardship Areas should first attempt to resolve the matter themselves.
Shared impact does not necessarily mean shared responsibility.
Shared responsibility exists when multiple projects or areas are directly responsible for delivering the decision or carrying its main consequences.
3. Network-wide decisions
Only decisions that genuinely affect the Permaculture Network as a whole belong to the Network Circle.
Examples include:
- purpose
- vision
- mission
- network-wide principles
- major network-wide policies
- fundamental governance changes
- major strategic direction affecting the whole network
How the advice process works
The responsible person or group may make a decision after seeking advice from:
- people who will be meaningfully affected by the decision
- people with relevant expertise
- people responsible for connected work
Advice should be taken seriously and considered carefully.
After receiving advice, the responsible person or group decides what they believe is the best course of action within their area of responsibility.
The advice process is not a vote and does not require everyone to agree.
Who has authority to decide
Authority depends on responsibility for the affected work.
This means, for example:
- a project decides matters that belong to that project
- people sharing responsibility for a project decide together how to organize that work
- an area carrying primary responsibility keeps authority for that decision while meaningfully affected areas have a right to be consulted
- network-wide matters are handled at the network level
Onboarding supports participation and contribution, but onboarding alone does not grant general decision-making authority across the whole network.
Scope of authority
Where a decision clearly falls within the responsibility of one project or Stewardship Area, that project or area has authority to make the decision.
Other parts of the network should not interfere simply because they have an opinion about the matter.
For significant decisions, the responsible project or area should still use the advice process.
One area responsible, others affected
Sometimes one project or Stewardship Area clearly carries primary responsibility while the consequences also affect others.
In this situation:
- decision authority remains with the area carrying primary responsibility
- affected areas should be consulted
- relevant advice should be genuinely considered
- affected areas do not automatically receive veto power
Decision authority remains with the area carrying primary responsibility, while meaningfully affected areas have a right to be consulted.
For example, a technical infrastructure decision may primarily belong to Digital Infrastructure, while Communication and Outreach is affected by changes to publishing workflows.
Communication and Outreach should be consulted, but this does not automatically make the technical decision a joint governance decision.
Shared responsibility across projects or Stewardship Areas
Where responsibility itself is genuinely shared between two or more projects or Stewardship Areas, the decision should be made together by those responsible areas.
They should use the normal advice and consent-based decision-making principles.
This does not automatically require involvement of the Network Circle.
Shared impact does not necessarily mean shared responsibility. Shared responsibility exists when multiple areas are directly responsible for delivering or carrying the consequences of the decision.
Unclear responsibility
If it is unclear which project or Stewardship Area owns a decision, the involved people should first clarify:
- who is carrying the practical responsibility
- who will implement the outcome
- who carries the main risks or consequences
- where the relevant expertise is located
The aim is to identify the most appropriate home for the decision rather than immediately escalating it.
If the involved projects or Stewardship Areas cannot agree on where responsibility belongs, the Network Circle may be asked to clarify the scope of responsibility.
The Network Circle may determine who should own the decision without necessarily making the underlying decision itself.
Once responsibility has been clarified, the decision should return to the appropriate project or Stewardship Area wherever possible.
Proportionality
The decision-making process should be proportional to the impact of the decision.
The decision process should be proportional to the impact, risk and reversibility of the decision.
Routine, low-risk, and easily reversible decisions may be made directly by the responsible person or project.
More consequential, costly, difficult-to-reverse, or broadly affecting decisions require wider advice and consultation.
Avoid creating unnecessary process around ordinary operational work.
Documentation of decisions
Significant decisions should have a short and understandable record.
The person or group making a significant decision is responsible for ensuring that it is documented.
Documentation may be delegated, but the decision-maker remains responsible for ensuring that an appropriate record exists.
Documentation should be proportional to the significance of the decision.
Routine, reversible, and low-risk operational decisions do not need extensive documentation.
More documentation is appropriate where a decision affects other projects or Stewardship Areas, commits significant resources, creates significant risk, is difficult to reverse, changes policy or governance, or is likely to need explanation later.
Network-wide decisions should have one canonical place of record, normally the agreed governance documentation or Logbook.
Financial decisions
The Permaculture Network currently has no independent funds.
When shared EuPN funds exist, community governance determines how shared network resources should be used.
Legal and financial commitments remain the responsibility of the legal entity holding the funds.
No governance decision can require the legal operator to act unlawfully or accept an unreasonable legal or financial risk.
Community governance operates within the legal responsibilities of Vihreä Pourusmäki ry.
Legal responsibility does not create general authority over community governance.
Legally binding documents are the responsibility of Vihreä Pourusmäki ry.
The Network Circle may approve the intent and direction of a partnership, but only Vihreä Pourusmäki ry or an authorised representative may enter into legally binding commitments on behalf of the Permaculture Network.
If a community decision cannot legally or reasonably be implemented, the legal constraint should be explained and the responsible governance body should work with the legal operator to find an alternative that preserves the intention of the decision as far as possible.
Shared responsibility within a project or team
Where several people genuinely share responsibility for the same decision, they should aim to decide through consent.
Consent does not mean unanimous enthusiasm or full consensus.
A proposal may proceed when there are no reasoned objections showing that it would cause significant harm to the project, its purpose, or affected work.
Teams may also divide responsibilities internally so that not every decision has to be made collectively.
For example, a team may agree that one person handles routine communication decisions, while another handles technical implementation decisions.
Voting
Voting should not be the default decision-making mechanism.
The preferred order is:
Responsibility -> Advice -> Consent where responsibility is shared -> Voting only as fallback
Voting may be used where a genuinely shared decision cannot otherwise be resolved.
Detailed fallback voting rules for the Network Circle may be defined separately.
Asynchronous participation
Silence should not automatically be treated as consent when people directly affected by a decision have not had a reasonable opportunity to respond.
Silence is not automatically consent when people directly affected by a decision have not had a reasonable opportunity to respond.
Emergency decisions
In an emergency, the person carrying responsibility may act immediately to prevent significant harm.
Emergency authority follows existing responsibility.
This means an emergency does not give unrelated people or governance bodies authority over areas they do not normally carry responsibility for.
Emergency authority is temporary and limited to what is necessary to address the immediate risk.
Emergency decisions should be documented and reviewed once the immediate situation has passed.
Emergency action does not replace the normal governance process for permanent decisions.
Conflict and decisions
Disagreement is not misconduct.
Ordinary disagreement, unclear authority, overlapping responsibilities, or conflicting priorities should normally be handled through the conflict-resolution process.
Potential Code of Conduct violations should follow the Code of Conduct process.
The conflict-resolution process should not be used to indefinitely delay decisions or work.
Simply declaring that a conflict exists should not automatically suspend a valid decision.
A decision may need to pause where there is a serious unresolved risk, unclear authority, a valid consent objection, a potential Code of Conduct issue requiring intervention, or another substantial reason.
Power stays close to the work
Whenever possible, decisions should be made at the smallest level affected by them.
This keeps authority close to the actual work and helps avoid unnecessary centralization.
A decision should only move to a wider governance level when it cannot reasonably be made at the level where the work happens.
This helps prevent the Network Circle from becoming a management board.
Practical decision test
Where responsibility is unclear, ask:
- Who is doing the work?
- Who is responsible for implementation?
- Who carries the main consequences if the decision fails?
- Is responsibility genuinely shared, or are other areas mainly affected?
- Can the decision reasonably be made without involving the Network Circle?
The answers should help identify the proper decision-making level.
Key logic
- Decisions are made by the people carrying responsibility for the affected work.
- Decision authority belongs to the area carrying primary responsibility.
- Being affected gives a right to be heard, not an automatic right to block.
- Before making a significant decision, they seek advice from people meaningfully affected and from people with relevant expertise.
- The amount of consultation should be proportional to the impact, risk, and reversibility of the decision.
- Routine and easily reversible decisions may be made directly by the responsible person or project.
- Where responsibility is shared, the people involved should aim for consent rather than unanimity.
- Decisions affecting several Stewardship Areas are first handled together by the affected areas.
- Only decisions affecting the network as a whole belong to the Network Circle.
- Voting is a fallback mechanism rather than the default form of decision-making.
Check the Reinventing Organizations wiki for more details on the advice process