Let's update our decision-making mandate

Well, I guess I'll get the ball rolling then. As a starting point I think we need to first and foremost update our decision making mandate to cover the adoption of Loomio and give it a general edit (see attached example).

Apart from that I would have a number of other suggestions and it would be great to get feedback from others on these ideas:

1. We should add in a section to define the decision making ability and mandate of both the focal points and the bottom-lining group. Given some recent conflicts this would appear to be an urgent and important update.
   
2. We should also add in a section to specify when working groups need and need not pass decisions through YOUNGO (e.g. if a policy position has already passed there wouldn't appear to be much of a need to approve associated actions or lobbying via separate votes).
   
3. I'm relatively happy with the deadlines, but is probably worthwhile considering whether they are still appropriate.
4. For COP decisions we should probably consider if just a spokescouncil decision is appropriate, which is something we have informally done and helps to lessen the barrage of e-mails at COP. If we did so we would have to define a quorum.

Two matters which should be discussed separately, since they are more fundamental and will probably require more discussion (and I don't want that holding back amendments for the issues in the above post):

1. I would suggest that we update our current decision making rules to incorporate majority voting instead of consensus. We have had major issues with blocks and consensus in general at recent COPs that have caused a significant amount of tension and conflict (a risk which was actually noted by the founders of YOUNGOs when this mandate was first being discussed). Majority voting has been shown through the social sciences to be a more effective and efficiency process that is actually better at building consensus. I would suggest we follow the science and adopt either a straight form of a majority vote or something more nuanced like Layered Voting (have different voting stipulations for different voting topics). It would be great to start a constructive conversation around this important issue.
2. I think we need to specify who is capable of voting. It does seem a little odd that an individual has the same voting and blocking power as a large organisation, working group or even a youth delegate. Personally I think it should be limited to the bodies of YOUNGO e.g. working groups, bottom-lining group and focal points. I'm certain others will have different ideas which would be great to hear about!

I agree with five especially. I have some mixed feelings on 4A (majority voting), and would like to hear others' views.

On the decision-making mandate of the BLT and FPs, I don't think that needs to be added here, because my understanding is that neither have any decision-making mandate. The FP mandate specifies their role, and it is solely as liaisons.

Ibrahim, however, has proposed that the BLT be given a leadership/decision-making mandate. I have mixed feelings on that. If, however, this happened, we would need BLT membership to be elected or appointed, not just voluntary.

I think a better approach would be to give Spokescouncil a decision-making mandate and arrange monthly Spokescouncil meetings via Skype. The BLT, then, is an administrative team, tasked with supporting decisions made by the constituency via the list or Spokescouncil - and the FPs are liaisons.

Hi,
sorry took me a while to get into new Loomio system.
The points in the second posts are quite difficult for me. I have been on the COPs with a Youth organisation that is already stretching and bending its policy framework quite a lot to actively participate in the Youth constituency. A majority voting system would probably result into us leaving the constituency and participate in another way. We just do not have the mandate to pass on powers to other organisations to make decision on our behalf. This also would include a leadership/decision-making mandate that David mentioned.
No. 5 is a valid point, but it was always my impression that individual membership of people in YOUNGO is one of the core elements of out self-concept as the binding element for the Youth climate movements around the world.
I agree with David that currently neither the FP nor the BLT have a decision making mandate. Saying that when choosing candidates for limited opportunities this is a decision made by the BLT.

Hi Lars,

Thanks for the reply and useful contributions: hopefully it will help resurrect this important conversation. I can understand that there would be some sovereignty concerns around voting, particularly for larger, organised constituencies such as the scouts. I would highlight that the aim would be to use majority voting as a consensus building tool, since there is a very large amount of evidence to suggest that majority voting is better at creating consensus outcomes than a consensus system is (happy to send some articles through if you like). So, it is highly, highly unlikely that it would come to an organisation being outvoted, and a vote would be an absolute last resort.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on a compromise system where we had majority voting with selective exits i.e a group(s) could opt out of certain collective positions and policies that were adopted by vote. That could be one way of addressing sovereignty concerns in the unlikely case of a vote, whilst promoting a more cohesive and effective YOUNGO through voting.

Fair point re no. 5, although my own impression was that this situation was more a result of a lack of clarity and foresight in the original YOUNGO model, rather than a value-based decision. I guess the question is whether we are willing to change things to promote a greater sense of collectivity as well decision making effectiveness and clarity.

I like the idea of selective exits. What're your thoughts, Lars?

I don't see the problem as being consensus. I see it more that people are treating YOUNGO as an organization rather than a constituency. And I feel that's somewhat reflected in this discussion here.
"non-governmental organizations admitted as observers at sessions of the Convention bodies have formed
themselves into loose groups with diverse but broadly clustered interests or perspectives." UNFCCC

on both sides of the issue, it's important to recognize that a constituency is a platform. Some can use that platform to voice their particular position without necessarily being endorsed by the entire collective. In other instances, the constituency can present a position and still highlight differing stances within that same position.

We've been kicking around Luke's ideas for a while now - would it be a good idea to start voting on some of these proposals?

Well... not a lot of people have participated in this discussion. And we haven't really agreed on anything for a consensus decision. Maybe a temp check?

Sounds good - to be honest, I was suggesting voting a way to get more people involved in the discussion!

Shall I create some "proposals" for each of the points clearly marked as just temperature checks, so we can use Loomio's voting tools to do them?