Skip to main content

Decision: Besluitvorming — keep in procest, integrate with decidesk (do not consolidate)

Status: Recommendation (2026-06-22) — backlog item #7.

Question​

Procest has a "Besluitvorming" nav group (Voorstellen = proposals, Advice = advice requests). Decidesk is the fleet's decision/meeting platform. Should procest's Besluitvorming consume decidesk instead of re-implementing it?

What each app actually does​

  • Procest Besluitvorming is a pre-decision routing workflow:
    • Voorstellen (voorstel schema 110): concept → in_parafering → ter_accordering → geaccordeerd → aangeboden → besloten. A signature-chain (parafeerroute) approval attached to a case. No voting, no amendments.
    • Advice (adviesAanvraag schema 126): opinion requests on a case.
  • Decidesk is formal governance decision-making: meetings, agenda items, motions/amendments, voting rounds + individual votes, minutes, decisions (universal decision supertype, ADR-005), governance bodies. Decision/Meeting are top-level; storage is CalDAV-first for action items.

Recommendation: keep separate, integrate one-way​

Procest's voorstel is the internal approval stage that precedes a formal decision; decidesk records the body's formal outcome. They are different lifecycle stages, not duplicates:

  • voorstel has no voting/amendments; a rejected voorstel returns to the steller.
  • procest is case-centric (voorstellen attach to a case); decidesk is governance-body-centric (decisions are body outcomes).

Do NOT fold Besluitvorming into decidesk. Do consider two light, optional, one-way integrations (separate future changes, only if usage warrants):

  1. When a voorstel reaches besloten, emit a downstream decidesk decision record to preserve the formal outcome (procest → decidesk, write-only).
  2. Replace procest task tracking with decidesk's CalDAV-VTODO action-item model for better Nextcloud-native task integration (orthogonal to Besluitvorming; evaluate fleet-wide).

Why not consolidate​

Mixing them blurs the domain boundary (is a decidesk decision a formal body outcome or a procest internal approval?), and procest's parafering chain does not map onto decidesk's voting/amendment model. Keep boundaries clear.

Next step​

No code change now. If desired, raise integration (1) as an OpenSpec change in both repos (procest emitter + decidesk consumer), gated on real demand.