Reinventing 'Is it safe enough to try'
Regarding the quite challenging and emotional onboarding meeting that we had I'd personally like to discuss if we can do this better. We have reached some form of consensus, which is a very good achievement, but my general feeling is that the way we have these meetings is not always perfect.
As we all know proposals can be rejected as 'not safe enough to try' by a single person. People have used this mechanism a couple of times now.
This mechanism means that a single person has a lot of power, resulting in a consensus that does not necessarily reflect the majority of the group. The only thing I see that this can result in is either
A) a tabling of the proposal or
B) a consensus to make everybody happy but that's not necessarily the best decision
Should we actually aim for a consensus where everybody is happy? Or should we aim for consensus that is the best for Giveth, with the 'risk' that that consensus might not always reflect the opinions and feelings of everyone in the team?
And I know that 'best for Giveth' is very subjective. Everyone has an opinion about it defined by his feelings, experience, background. So as we're all so different, should a single person have so much say in what's best for Giveth? Isn't a majority not a better indication of what's best?
And if the majority wants direction A) and that does not conform the vision of one or more people, should the majority then go direction B? Or should these people adapt to A or in the worst case leave Giveth because visions don't match anymore?
I'd very much like to have an open discussion about if and how holocracy can help us have less and better meetings. And if not, perhaps move to a system that is better (I personally love the advise process and the ego-bell in 'reinventing organizations') Perhaps people with more experience can shed some light?
Or if you think this discussion is pointless and everything is all fine, I could definitely table this discussion! :-)