Effective Decision Making
It's tough enough for us to make our own individual decisions in our lives. Try to do this as a group of two and it's 10X harder. Add a 3rd person and it's even harder. It becomes harder and harder as a group grows its participant size.
The AiD and muxive solution can and should be extended into the decision-making realm, but not necessarily to make the actual decisions. Instead to prioritize those past and present decisions made.
Think about this group making decisions as a group. Imagine we have made 5 decisions thus far. These can and should be prioritized. Often all decisions are connected. The first decision impacts the second. Those two impact the next one. But along the way often a later decision is found to be more important than earlier decisions. Often a later decision makes it necessary to change an earlier decision.
When all decisions are placed within a priority list framework and every member has an opportunity to reorder decision positioning, and everyone has equal power, and a single resultant rank-ordered listing is automatically generated in real time - then the group has one voice with which to reference to move forward with more harmony.
I would suggest to the group that we start making decisions - even if very small ones and then put them within the priority list framework. Give everyone a chance to rank-order all these decisions over a period of time and see what rises to the top and how the ordering then brings about new decisions and changes with old decisions.
No one is the group leader. No one has more power than anyone else. But yet the group finds its unique voice and its priorities. Anyone can come and anyone can go at any time and yet the group always remains in tact and never loses its voice, its values, its mission, etc.
IMHO - this is what is missing from tools like Loomio and what is necessary to keep like-minded activists on a ever-progressing path forward with far more harmony within each active participants mind, heart and gut. We can all disagree about specifics but we all accept what we are as one entity (with its one voice.) If you cannot accept this one entities' voice in the world then you are free to go find a better matching community or spin off and create a new one with like-minded others.
We can demo this for this d@w group. Just start putting forth decision proposal statements. When we get the specific decision language crafted to an acceptable place then we can add to the list of decision items.
Loomio can be used to always discuss better specific 'languaging' of each decision statement. You will see that nearly everything requires constant revisiting and change as time marches forward. The groups decision priority list will also change. New decisions will rise to the top often forcing required change to those less important decisions below.
Gotta experiment with new solutions to see what the reality is with each. Reality often is not what we imagine it's in our minds prior to implementation.
Joe started a proposal Fri 28 Oct 2016
d@w will implement "prioritized decision making." Closed Mon 31 Oct 2016
This is an example group decision statement to get us all started testing this approach I discussed in this thread. Accept it, reject it, or suggest better languaging for it. We need to work out the rules of when a decision can be added to "the d@w voice" listing. Will it be after a set period of time with a simple majority vote result? How much time? What % vote?
If we can come up with 3 or more decision statements then I'll build the tool for us to each prioritize these all with and find our one voice.
|Agree - 5|
|Abstain - 5|
|Disagree - 5|
|Block - 5|
Fri 28 Oct 2016
This reminds me of the agile (scrum) software development "user stories." https://www.mountaingoatsoftware.com/agile/user-stories
and seems like a great way to start. :thumbsup:
Sun 30 Oct 2016
I find all this highly concerning and intentionally disruptive for self serving means. Considering the low participation (5/44) on a decision of this magnitude I move to block.
Mon 31 Oct 2016
After reading the entire discussion I think this needs to be clarified and may or may not need to be put up for a vote again.
Please see my comment below for further context.