Using a 'Block'

I just used a block for the first time on Loomio, and possibly the first time ever. I can't help but think that if someone feels so strongly about their objection that they 'block' instead of just saying 'no', that is the end of the proposal in its current form. Perhaps the system should auto-close the proposal, so a new one can be created which may have some chance of passing consensus?

I very much agree that a shared understanding of the meaning / use of a ‘block’ is vital - and maybe loomio can help with this. Tricky though because people don’t read instructions and you need to keep it short and sweet.

My idea would be that the effects of using a block might be something automatic and if it was a setting people could choose as they create a new loomio community and in any event well worth walking people through.

For instance you could auto-close the proposal (but you’d need to give people time to discuss and potentially amend things so as to allow the block to be removed).

Perhaps instead of auto-closing you’d make it so the whole circle goes a shade of red - thus signifying that it would in fact fail due to a single block (at the relevant time).

At OWS I remember hearing that people’s understanding of ‘block’ was that if you block it means that your understanding of the issue is that it is sufficiently important to you that should the proposal pass you would leave the group.

Not sure how but maybe that could be something built into the software somehow? (Though it only really works if some mechanism for revised consensus exists).

Again at OWS I saw that when someone blocked the group would occasionally go into ‘revised’ consensus which involved carefully counting up people that wanted to vote and then requiring a 95% majority to pass a motion despite the block. I guess this was necessary due to the real world and size of the crowd. Some people found it very frustrating that in this particular context the expectation was that the blocker would then leave the group - except they didn’t. But at the time I thought it could be something built in if you were doing this online.

So worth thinking about. In a mature online environment with potentially hundreds or thousands of members I guess these things might be well worth thinking about.

@milesthompsonkapit >> you’d need to give people time to discuss and potentially amend things so as to allow the block to be removed). <<

The proposal text cannot be edited, to avoid people saying 'yes' to one thing, and finding the proposal has changed to something they're not comfortable with by the time it closes. I think if there is any possibility of an amendment helping, the person would be saying 'no', instead of blocking, which is why I propose auto-close instead.

Perhaps instead of auto-closing you’d make it so the whole circle goes a shade of red - thus signifying that it would in fact fail due to a single block (at the relevant time). <<

I do think this makes a lot of sense.

Generally speaking, I am wary of automating or standardising the definition and implementation of any protocols, if it can be avoided.

I understand the desire for clarity, as it makes things more accessible, but leaving it open-ended allows for nuance, individual interpretation, and adaptability. On balance I've found that to be a positive thing. I'm not 100% clear on what problem you're identifying @strypey.

If the Blocking protocol were formalised, I think that would immediately raise the second question of 'who may participate in this decision?'

At the moment, there's not a pressing need to answer that question, and once again, I think that is a good thing.

Keeping things un-standardised forces us to engage as humans and relate to each other as if we were unique and infinitely complex individuals, each with divinely subjective experiences of reality!

yes I agree @richarddbartlett . Talking with users it is clear one of the things people like about Loomio is they can use their current or newly developed group deciion making protocol. As we develop group profile pages we can create space to make this more conscious and people can select from a menu the definition of each button. But for now open and easy to interpret for each group seems very important

I think this will depend on the types of groups that use Loomio in their collaborative decision making processes and for what purposes they use it.

My hope is that there will be continuum of options so that groups using it can make it work for their groups. In saying that it is also important to take into account that in different groups decisions sometimes also have different thresholds to block a proposal.

For example in one national organisation that I work with in the UK there is a 75% threshold to change the constitution.

So I'm for having the options there so groups can make Loomio work for them, rather than having a prescriptive approach decided by the software developers.

How about when a proposal is blocked it turns red and no one else can state a position until it has been removed. Kind of like a 'pause'. This would focus the whole group to resolve this issue in the discussion, and it could not thus get overlooked, or obscured.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I feel the block option is the core of power and effectiveness in consensus groups, and our software should somehow culturally or technically support and illuminate this power to groups who use it. It's a very serious thing to block something, and it should be taken seriously by the software and by the people using the software. There should be consequences for the proposal, like shutting it down, and for the user, like they actually need to leave the group if they stick to their block and the rest of the entire group opts to push the proposal through anyway...

I don't have a clear idea of the problem we're trying to solve.