Consensus
Mon 23 Sep 2024 5:41AM

Basic stuff for making this work

AB Alyaza Birze Public Seen by 32

Our current procedures

Provisional procedure (from Proposal 2)

  1. proposals can be drafted by anyone in the decision-making group

  2. proposals will seek to have consensus from those around (or explicit approval from 2/3rds of the decision-making group) before being voted on

  3. proposals will then be voted on, with a voting period of at least 24 hours

  4. proposals must receive the support of 2/3rds of the decision-making group to go into effect (ignoring explicit abstentions)

  5. if a member of the decision-making group expresses they want to veto a proposal, the proposal also immediately fails

  6. in a crisis/emergency situation, procedure is to exercise best judgment in the moment. there will be time later to talk things over for better outcomes later.

Provisional consensus vote categories (decided after Proposal 2)

  1. Endorse: Unreserved support

  2. No objection: “I’ll go along with it.”

  3. Minor objection: “I have some reservations but am willing to let the proposal pass.”

  4. Stand aside: “I personally can’t do this, but I won’t stop others from doing it.” The person standing aside is not responsible for the consequences - this should be recorded in the minutes.

  5. Major objection: “I have serious issues with this proposal that must be addressed to receive my support.” A single major objection acts as a veto, and blocks the proposal from passing

  6. Abstain: None of the above/the recusal option

Tips

Not all decisions need consensus

If a decision is minor enough that the length of discussion will probably not take longer than going through a vote, than just consense informally by making a suggestion, looking for approval, asking if there are any objections, and moving along. If an issue is complex or controversial enough that the discussion will definitely take longer than the process of making a proposal and voting on it, it makes sense to use a formal, explicit consensus process. Otherwise, you may have to do it all over again if it turns out that there were objections or conflicting understandings of the informal decision.

A few strategies for clarifying or resolving the point of non-consensus

  • Allow the person most concerned to make the decision.

  • Leave the decision for later or take a break. Have an energizing activity or a cup of tea.

  • Ask everyone to argue convincingly the point of view they like the least.

  • Break down the decision into smaller areas. See which ones you can agree on and see what points of disagreement are left.

  • Identify the assumptions and beliefs underlying the issue. Get to the heart of the matter.

  • Imagine what will happen in six months, a year, five year’s time if you don’t agree. How important is the decision now?

Additional reading on consensus and getting along

AB

Alyaza Birze Thu 26 Sep 2024 3:19AM

Balancing input from everyone

as we begin to kick the Loomio into full gear, it'll be important to ensure everyone is able to participate. one part of that is striking an important balance between speaking up when you have a disagreement, and sitting back so our conversations aren't monopolized by a few people. as the Consensus Handbook notes:

A common form of disruptive behaviour in groups is when a handful of strong personalities do most of the group’s talking and organising. Dominating behaviour can be very destructive for a group – it needs to be addressed if we are to achieve real consensus in meetings.

The reality is that in any group, even one which uses consensus and is committed to non­hierarchy, some people will be feeling more empowered and comfortable than others. Who this is might vary from situation to situation, but particularly when it is the same people a lot of the time, these characters can end up dominating the group. [...] The problem here is not the fact that they feel empowered and comfortable. [...] The difficulty arises when there are big imbalances between members of the group, or some people use their power against others.

Or it might simply always be the same people who express their views and feelings when an issue is discussed, meaning that ultimately the decisions always go their way. If this is the case then a group is not really using consensus, because it will not be finding solutions which work for the people who are less able to express their views.

often this dynamic is not an intentional one, but it will be corrosive in the long-term if we're committed to consensus decision-making.

there are no good and universal rules of thumb for how to deal with this, but mindfulness of how often you participate is a good place to start. not having an opinion is completely fine; you probably shouldn't have one on everything to begin with. letting others play a conversation out first before you opine might let the discussion go in a direction you hadn't considered before.

another good place to start: we should use the consensus process not only for decision-making, but for building up each other's knowledge so things don't feel exclusionary and daunting. (this also makes it easier for people to acclimatize into the group--it can be hard to speak up when you're not familiar with doing that!) again from the Consensus Handbook:

Other people may defer to [the dominant voices in a group] because they always know where things are kept, how things work and what happened last time an idea was tried out. In this case, steps need to be taken to make it easier for people to get involved in the things the group does, not just to make it easier for them to talk in meetings.

WM

walking mirage Sat 28 Sep 2024 8:26AM

i feel like "ask questions even if you think you know your opinion, or even if you're certain" can help a lot here.