Feature request: Consensus Invite

Hi @stevenpalmer - could this not be achieved simply by having a loomio discussion to agree your group description/purpose and then post that (or link to it) as your group description? I'm not sure I understand why this would need a special feature.

I thought about this @alanna and it certainly is a semi and quick fix, but I believe there's potential in a more advanced feature, rather than winging it with a basic description. Here's some further thoughts;

Just like privacy statements shown before allowing access to software, not during, I think a consensus group would benefit from encouraging new members to process an agreement before granting them access to system. At the moment the description can be easily ignored, on purpose.

People may disagree with description, partly, in general or in full, but choose not to say anything, even if encouraged otherwise.

A checkbox to ratify a statement will provide stronger encouragement to review core principles and goals.

Wouldn't need to keep linking to statement/description post or reminding people, so can free up group description and/or invite message for more useful general and brief statements.

Could have radio button options in statement to provide feedback on specific parts of statement/declaration. For example, a choice of agree, undecided or disagree. A negative response could automatically respond with further information as to why a goal or value is important to the group. This would cut down on repetition of discussion, ratifying invites, moderation duties - a general freeing up of human resources.

Core principles and goals can be altered at any time via consensus, then all existing members can be forced to review before continuance.

The above benefits could make large numbers of invites and group sizes manageable and the entire process more streamlined. Bringing a greater peace of mind knowing that fellow group members have likely read core statement and you now share core principles, goals and interests with them.

I think a groups mission; it's principles, values and goals, deserve more focus than a simple reminder to read them. The mission shouldn't simply be glanced at upon entering the room and then forgotten, but encouraged to spend specific attention to. Encouragement of interaction would help also.

It should not be legally binding like a privacy statement, but more like an online petition to sign specifically, integrated as part of the decision making system.

Just to build on that, I notice coursera.org courses now have a radio-button "survey" basically asking how actively you intend engaging with the course.

I don't really care how (or whether) they're using this information, I'm more interested in the fact that from a user perspective, it's making me pause and reflect, what is my intention upon "entering the room"?

(I've wondered about other subtle ways of encouraging intentionality...such as customising the 'say something' prompt to say something like "What do you want to say? To whom?")

I like the sound of this. It's probably not a huge priority as a similar effect can be achieved with existing functionality, but I can see the usefulness of the feature. It's kind of like a 'terms of service' that you might agree to when you join any web service, but customisable by the group coordinators.

OK I am becoming convinced... Yammer has a similar feature which I have actually found very useful, where you can put in content that is shown to all new users when they first join, and they have to click OK to continue to get in. I think Yammer implemented it for icky "terms of use" and "acceptable use policy" use cases in corporate settings, but as an online facilitator I used it as a way to share context setting info about the culture, What kind of info is meant to be posted where, expectations of confidentiality, where to find help info, and who to contact if you had questions. I found that very useful.

It kinda sounds like moving in the direction of a crowd sourced manifest or constitution. Do you mean one for every person who creates a Loomio account, as in an encompassing set of guide lines for all? Or for each group within Loomio? The implications are quite different for either context.

I was imagining this to simply be text that would be set for each group by the group coordinator, different for each group, and optional to have at all. Maybe as simple as the group description pops up when you first join a group and you're asked to read it and click OK.

Being new to Loomio Im not sure that I understand exactly the circumstances you are talking about. However as Im part of an organisation that specialises in collaborative decision making (The Groupwork Institute of Australia www.groupwork.com.au ), Im intrigued by what it means to "inoculate a consensus group from the toxicity and corruption of the public sphere by limiting the damaging effects of unwelcome changes to the participants core opinions and values" (the opening comment by Steve Palmer). Consensus is really a process where through good facilitation, people are able to communicate across their differences including prejudices, blindspots and other limitations that we all have. In a sense, to achieve consensus, we have to put each other above the particular decision that needs to be made because its only from the foundation of good human to human connection that truly sustainable decision can be made in the first place. That's where people are really collaborating because everyone's trying to be in the shoes of "the other" so whats built by way of a decision is truly a group effort.

If you make people agree to a certain set of words, you are closing off the discussion by placing an "agree" only button at the bottom of that statement. No matter how well intentioned it may be. On of the things I love about consensus, is the ongoing, evolving conversations that come from it. When new people, new thoughts and ideas are presented to me that I would otherwise never have considered, or considered and dismissed because they weren't explained. It seems odd to me that a software designed for this sort of process would have a single button to press that you must agree with before moving on. Perhaps it would be better to have an "Agree" and "Discuss" button?