Loomio
Thu 20 Feb

Should we use Integrative Consent for decision-making in Social.Coop?

MN
Matt Noyes Public Seen by 168

This purpose of this thread is to experiment with an integrative consent process as described here: https://help.loomio.org/en/guides/consent_process/?utm_campaign=consent_process_roundsky&utm_term=roundsky

The model proposal is that Social.Coop adopt the integrative consent method for decision-making on Loomio. We can use an integrative consent process to discuss and maybe reach consent on this proposal. This will give us practice.

MN

Matt Noyes started a proposal Thu 20 Feb

Social.Coop should use the integrative consent process described by Loomio/Roundsky for our online decision-making. Closed Tue 25 Feb

Outcome
by Matt Noyes Tue 25 Feb

I have closed this round and will now re-draft the proposal, taking into account the various questions, suggestions, and doubts raised. I will post it as a new version of the proposal and start a new round, focused on identifying objections. Thank you for the substantive responses!

Proposer: @Matt Noyes

Integrative consent is a simple form of consent decision-making that should help us be more efficient in our decision-making and make it easier for members to understand and participate in the process. The form I propose is described, with a useful video, here: https://help.loomio.org/en/guides/consent_process/?utm_campaign=consent_process_roundsky&utm_term=roundsky

"This round can include clarifying questions, sharing points of information, making any desired responses, including better ideas for the proposal on the table. If there are questions, it is the proposer who gets to answer them or delegate them to whoever they would like to answer that question. During this step it’s very important for the proposer to be listening carefully and paying close attention to what’s being shared for anything that they would like to change about their proposal, which is the third step."

Results
0 people have voted (0%)
M

mike_hales Thu 20 Feb

Good to have this suggestion @Matt Noyes but it doesn’t seem simple to me, I imagine it would work best within a defined smallish team of folks who regularly work together. Both proposer and facilitator roles need developed literacy, which could take a long time to diffuse in a community as diffuse as ours, and other participants need to understand how to play the game too. Maybe it could be the norm for working groups? But I doubt it would be viable in general.

A separate but related point - our polls often have very low turn out. Do we need to set a quorum? For example, on this poll?

MC

Matthew Cropp Thu 20 Feb

I like the integrative consent model quite a bit, but feel like we should do some sort of info session about it/discussion before putting forward a proposal, so we can make sure we've built a critical mass of people who understand what it entails who can weigh in on the decision that make it policy.

Z

Zee Thu 20 Feb

Something to keep in mind is that distributed organizations tend to do best when there is low coupling between members.

Are you intending this to be the mandatory "How we make decisions" mechanism, or is this intended to be a mechanism a proposer may consider using as they work towards agreement?

MF

Mica Fisher Thu 20 Feb

I really like this model. I think we (the CWG ops team) have made a number of proposals in the last few months that would have benefited from an explicit integration round. I think it will take a bit of training, but that's something worth investing our time in. Also, I think someone can pick up the steps quite well from the 4.5 min video on the page Matt posted. Perhaps it would call for a quick on boarding guide when someone becomes active on the social.coop loomio page?

MN

Matt Noyes Thu 20 Feb

Meta response: Love it. This is how it is supposed to work. My job as proposer is to listen carefully and think about how to integrate these concerns in a new proposal. I will hold off, though, to give more time for others to respond. I do think the short video and the outline/instructions on the page linked in the proposal description are clear and helpful if the process is unclear.

D

Darren Thu 20 Feb

Just watched the video, not sure it all sunk in, but think its somewhat like what I've been imagining may work well for some of our decision making.

The coordination work group thread actually had much of what I'm thinking would be good. Guess maybe the conversation inappropriately died when @Matt Noyes redrafted the proposal (think linking to docs, rather than having text in Loomio, risks loosing folks attention - particularly Google Docs or other stuff hosted on similar distrusted megacorps, was the case for me here).

I recently saved a link to this page which I thought may be useful for us. Proposal Two describes another process with some similar features. Think if I had to pick between the two (which we dont) I'd choose integrative consent method, over this, in large part because the only wider consultation/discussion before voting happens via a video call meeting.

D

Darren Thu 20 Feb

Not entirely sure what you mean about low coupling, but I'm interested.

Z

Zee Thu 20 Feb

Coupling is a design and engineering concept where person or piece X has a difficult to break connection to person or piece Y.

In mechanical systems, coupling looks like a joint or gear or what not. In social systems, it often looks like an agreement or contract or law.

My question is basically: "Is this an 'all people must make proposals following this process' or is it 'people may choose to use this process as they make proposals?'"

My personal preference is for the latter.

M

mike_hales Thu 20 Feb

Is this an 'all people must make proposals following this process' or is it 'people may choose to use this process as they make proposals?'"

Seems to me the former wouldn’t wash. And I believe the latter is too weak to make much difference to more than a handful of very engaged people.

We are a very loose coupled collective?

Reply to this email directly or view it on Loomio ( https://www.loomio.org/d/lDiAVCsd/comment/2184154?membership_token=9sotKmN8P7z6T27aMW2Qs2mQ&utm_campaign=discussion_mailer&utm_medium=email&utm_source=new_comment ).

Change your email preferences ( https://www.loomio.org/email_preferences?unsubscribe_token=QzBWx57NvbTWaCTLmsXy&utm_campaign=discussion_mailer&utm_medium=email&utm_source=new_comment ).

Logo

MN

Matt Noyes Thu 20 Feb

Up to now, I have been playing two roles: proposer and facilitator. It seems it is better for someone other than the proposer to facilitate -- any takers?

Z

Zee Fri 21 Feb

I agree, @mike_hales. I sent the link to my worker-coop and they basically said:

1. This looks a lot like DELPHI from the 50s
and
2. There are a few things that we can start thinking about and using right away; but that the full process seems heavy.

Some of the tips from the guide seem like they'll be useful (put proposals in writing, don't object unless you can state the reason, moving forward can generate more data) to keep in mind starting right away.

J

JohnKuti Fri 21 Feb

I wonder if we are doing this correctly? I've probably missed something, but on my reading of the instructions, you need a facilitator to have the "questions and comments" round. The facilitator stops this stage being an open discussion by asking specific people to contribute. (Which sounds like a highly political and powerful role).

MN

Matt Noyes Fri 21 Feb

In an asynchronous process, I think the equivalent of a round would be something like "no one comments twice until all have had the chance to comment once" but, interestingly, we don't know who is in the discussion (unlike a physical round, where people are all in the same space/time). So, I wonder which is better - to allow for more free exchange at this stage or to do something like no one should comment twice until all have commented once? Or maybe to use this process with a specified group of participants, like a working group? Another question is should there be "cross talk" at this point, i.e. responses to comments?

AU

Ana Ulin Fri 21 Feb

This sounds to me like what I have seen called "Integrative Decision Making" (https://prototyping.work/prototype/integrative-decision-making-idm/), and coincidentally we use at my current employer (a small EdTech startup). Which is to say that I have some personal experience with this process, but in a very different environment (a much smaller group, with much clearer hierarchy and goals).

What works very poorly with IDM in my current work environment is that pretty much all proposals get "approved" (STTed), but typically with very low commitment from everyone except the original proposer. This then leads to unsuccessful implementation (a lot of these proposals involve group process or behavior change). I'm sure whatever failure modes we run into with IDM in social.coop will be different, so I do not consider my personal data point on IDM a reason to not try it here.

In my experience, formal IDM is a lot more heavyweight, in terms of burden on participants and facilitators, than what I typically see on social.coop's Loomio discussions. So I would not want to make IDM a requirement for all proposals, at least not until we have tried it out a couple of times with some success.

Which is all to say, that I would give this proposal a "Safe To Try", as long as it is not a requirement that formal IDM gets used for all proposals (at least not for now), and as long as we have some process or ritual to reflect at a later date on how this is or is not working for us. 👍

ED

emi do Sat 22 Feb

This is all fascinating!

I think the positive response from @Matt Noyes , @Mica Fisher , @Matthew Cropp and myself to this process is that the way that we've been making proposals thus far in the CWG can sometimes feel like the CWG Ops Team is having all of the discussion and then thrusting a proposal at the working group. I think this happens because we haven't really been using the function of a non-vote discussion phase for proposals effectively. As @Mica Fisher alluded to in her comment, I think we all felt a little uncomfortable at how unclear the process by which we discussed and integrated comments from the previous proposal for the coordination committee. It would have felt more inclusive had we had a discussion before crafting the proposal rather than having a vote right away.

All this to say, that I personally love the idea of the CWG Ops Team utilizing this process to give it a try and to keep it non-mandatory. I also like the idea of suggesting that social.coop use some of the ideas as aspirational ways of interacting when making and contributing to proposals/decision making. I agree that it might be hard to 'implement' or make 'mandatory' mostly because of the on-boarding process.

MAS

Michel Alexandre Salim Sat 22 Feb

Agreed with @mike_hales that it might be worth trialling this in individual working groups first, though the process does seem reasonable to adopt more broadly in cases where we're already using Loomio anyway. I think as long as the proposer is familiar with the process (and there are some other people who can help guide the proposal through the process) this should work.

I'm actually in the process of introducing a similar process at work - the Silent Meeting Manifesto - for the same reason outlined in the Loomio doc (esp the point about loud voices silencing other participants).

One objection a team mate has is that moving the emphasis to written communication disadvantages those who are dyslexic - probably more of a concern in silent meetings, which happens synchronously, than in the suggested way to run Integrative Consent async where time constraint is less of an issue, but maybe something we need to keep an eye on

MB

Manuela Bosch Mon 24 Feb

I was hoping to have a possiblity to integrate a conset process in loomio for other projects. It's worth trying it out for social.coop.

JB

Jonathan Bean Mon 24 Feb

JB

Jonathan Bean Mon 24 Feb

I love this meta-decision process. I feel that a mix of governance modes are the best approach. I think this integrative consent process is a great way to make many decisions collectively. Although I wonder what the process would be for objecting to a valid objection. What happens when there is a proposal where the benefits outweigh the valid risks and harms? Or if it results in some "harm" (maybe some loss of freedom) to some people but much greater benefits for the whole (maybe greater freedoms for most people). We might call this "The Greater Benefits Scenario" (GBS). So in some cases, it would not be possible to reach unobjectionable total consensus, and therefore great proposals and opportunities could be mired in debates and disagreements. Would there be a process for overruling an objection or a block? I think in this scenario, we might need a sort of liquid democracy process, where everyone chooses who will represent them on the governing board. In this rare GBS scenario, a two-thirds majority would be required to overrule the objection, and members of the board have different delegations powers corresponding to who has given their delegation power to them. Then in the case of a 2/3 majority, those who have delegated their powers to the delegates would have some time to confirm the overruling and then the ruling is initiated. We could also have a sort of Board of Supreme Court Justices to determine if the decision was just or not regardless of a majority ruling. These are just some rough ideas and thought experiments and I am open to hearing thoughts, concerns, and objections to this. I am not sure of the reasoning for the values for complete consensus so am open to hearing that as well. - Jon Bean.

JB

Jonathan Bean Mon 24 Feb

A possible solution to the dyslexia issue is to have people upload a short video or audio clip of their contributions. I would not mind reading aloud my inputs if someone needs that. I do prefer to have the asynchronous time to compose my thoughts in writing, as I am a bit weak at synchronous verbal communications. It does seem possible to attach video and audio files to these messages.

MN

Matt Noyes Tue 25 Feb

Okay, I think at this point I am going to close this round and re-draft the proposal, taking into account the various questions, suggestions, and doubts raised. I will post it as a new version of the proposal and ask for objections. Thank you for the substantive responses!

MN

Matt Noyes Tue 25 Feb

"STEP 3: Amendment

"Step three, amend, is where the proposer makes changes at their discretion to their proposal based on the input they received in step two. The proposer doesn’t have to amend anything or respond to everything shared in step two. Their job is to change what they feel would be best on behalf of the whole team, not just their, or anyone else’s, personal preferences. Once we have an amended proposal, then we move into step four, integrate."

MN

Matt Noyes started a proposal Tue 25 Feb

Consent, Abstain, Objections: Social.Coop should use an integrative consent process for our online decision-making. (V2) Closed Tue 3 Mar

Social.Coop members should experiment with the integrative consent method described by Loomio/Roundsky for decision-making on Loomio, starting with the Community Working Group (CWG), with a review of the process in six months to see if it should be continued and/or spread.

REMEMBER: This purpose of this thread is to experiment with an integrative consent process. We are learning by doing, practicing the model as we make a decision about this proposal.

(The next step is Step Four: Integration.)

Results
Consent - 5
Abstain - 6
Objection - 0
11 people have voted (5%)
MN

Matt Noyes Tue 25 Feb

PROCESS: "During this phase, all team members are invited to present any objections they have, with objections being defined as what “might cause harm to the team or organization”.

In our use of Integrative Consent, should we decide to use it, we might want to alter the criteria, but for now let's use theirs:

MN

Matt Noyes started a check Tue 25 Feb

Who can facilitate this discussion of the proposal? Closed Wed 26 Feb

Outcome
by Matt Noyes Wed 26 Feb

@Mica Fisher is our facilitator

IMPORTANT: we need a facilitator at this step. That person should not be the proposer (Matt N). In the interests of learning the process by following it, who would be willing to facilitate, following the instructions?

1 - Yes
AU

Ana Ulin Wed 26 Feb

I am willing to facilitate, but I am going to be traveling starting tomorrow (Feb 26th) and until March 11th, with very limited online availability, so I won't be able to contribute during that time. If we want to move the process forward during that time, someone else would need to facilitate.

(FWIW, in the IDM process as practiced at my current work, the proposer is also the person that integrates feedback and comes up with an updated proposal. I don't know how usual or advisable that is, this is my only experience with IDM.)

👤

Anonymous
Consent
Wed 26 Feb

MN

Matt Noyes Wed 26 Feb

Hi Ana, thanks for being willing to facilitate! I think if we wait until you are back it might be too long? About the integration and updated proposal, I am happy to do that. I think the facilitator's job is just to help us stick to the process and to ask people if their objections are valid, is that right?

AU

Ana Ulin Wed 26 Feb

Yep, the role would be mainly to keep the process on track. I agree that waiting for two weeks is too long -- maybe someone else can facilitate, or you can do that yourself if needed @Matt Noyes .

👤

Anonymous
Abstain
Wed 26 Feb

I’m happy for CWG to experiment. For myself, this kind of formal process is over-elaborate and of limited appeal.

👤

Anonymous
Abstain
Wed 26 Feb

👤

Anonymous
Abstain
Wed 26 Feb

Okay with me, but I think some recognition of the concentric circles of organizational closeness a la the DisCO ideas would be useful to set expectations for these more-formal processes. Like, who expects whom to participate? Might also be good to opt-in for notifications of votes, if possible, so when the proposal notification arrives in my email reader I could opt-in for the rest of the chatter and vote..

👤

Anonymous
Consent
Wed 26 Feb

MN

Matt Noyes Wed 26 Feb

Maybe in this case it is okay because this is a trial proposal so I am not as invested in the outcome and more interested in learning from the process. But better if someone else wants to try out facilitating...

MN

Matt Noyes Wed 26 Feb

Meta: "who expects whom to participate?" This is a key issue -- seems like this process assumes something like a team or working group trying to organize its work. My proposal left the "who" undefined... So that should be added to the process at a question to consider at the first step: "Who is expected to participate in this process? Why?"

👤

Anonymous
Abstain
Wed 26 Feb

It seems like there is a significant amount of coupling due to the sheer quantity of roles and the amount of communication overhead to drive things forward. It also (at present) is leaving me with a bit of confusion about what I should be doing in this present moment. Should I be voting? Should I be objecting? Should I be commenting? It's all a bit overwhelming.

MF

Mica Fisher
Yes
Wed 26 Feb

I can be the facilitator!

MN

Matt Noyes Wed 26 Feb

Thanks @Mica Fisher !!!

MN

Matt Noyes Wed 26 Feb

Meta: "Should I be voting? Should I be objecting? Should I be commenting? It's all a bit overwhelming." -- The idea of this Step is that people should object and comment. So, maybe instead of "Consent, Abstain, Objection" I should have just asked for Objections?

MF

Mica Fisher Wed 26 Feb

Yes this seems like one of the trickier parts. In the video example by Loomio and Roundsky they made the title of the proposal Objections: Title (version 2) BUT they used the same consent, abstain, objection voting feature. I think repeating that framework is what is most useful. So Step 4 integration is NOT for commenting on the original proposal (i.e. trying to influence the proposal, of course you can comment on why you abstained or consent). Step for is for consenting, abstaining, or objecting. And objecting fits into the more narrow framework of "this might cause harm to the org." Maybe just making the title "Consent, Abstain or Object: Social.Coop should use an integrative consent process, Version 2" will make that clearer?

MN

Matt Noyes Wed 26 Feb

Changed the title, thanks!

👤

Anonymous
Objection
Wed 26 Feb

Before committing to 6 months of practicing this, we should do a thorough analysis and compare all of the similar options for decision making that fits with our needs and structures. I like comparison shopping and I would like to more input from experienced individuals and organizations that have a similar mission and operating procedures. My amendment to the proposal is to make a call to organize a more or less formal panel or committee with the goal of making sure we are safe to try.

JB

Jonathan Bean Wed 26 Feb

I did not have enough space to expand my objection to make it valid enough, I will continue here. Maybe this is not an objection but more of a suggestion, I am not sure.
I would like to do more research and more time to make an informed decision, although I am not in the CWG and maybe I should not object to them trying it. Before committing to 6 months of practicing this, we should do a thorough analysis and compare all of the similar options for decision making that fits with our needs and structures. I like comparison shopping and I would like to get more input from experienced individuals and organizations that have a similar mission and operating procedures. My amendment to the proposal is to make a call to organize a more or less formal panel or committee with the goal of making sure we are safe to try this, which we are now doing here a bit. I would like a digest of the available information about all the decision making processes. Maybe try this process a few more times before committing to it for 6 months.

I believe @Matt Noyes's proposal is important and that we need to carefully and intentionally consider it more. It seems to me this process is a healthy policy development and implementation strategy. I think it is better than no strategy. I should say that I am still relatively new as an active member and I don't have a lot of experience with decision making in a user-owned platform cooperative, but I would like to learn more and do more of this.


👤

Anonymous
Consent
Thu 27 Feb

JD

Josef Davies-Coates Thu 27 Feb

Sounds to me like this is just a personal preference so not really a valid objection, especially given you're not (yet) in in the group concerned. 😃

Surely this proposal is "safe enough to try', no?

Or put another way, what are the risks of trying this out for 6-months?

To be clear, I'd love to see a summary of such alternative options too, but I don't think waiting for that to exist is a prerequisite.

Personally I think no real danger to trying something out for 6-months 😃

👤

Anonymous
Abstain
Thu 27 Feb

JB

Jonathan Bean Thu 27 Feb

@Josef Davies-Coates, Right, it is not really an objection. I guess I can not say "not safe to try" and I also can not say "safe to try", as I don't know enough to be sure, so it is "maybe safe to try" I guess abstain is the only option for me right now.

One of the potential risks /harm I was thinking about is related to what @mike_hales was saying on the thread for this on social.coop. We discovered that using this process on loomio exclusively was not the most ideal, that we need to maintain the informal forms of discussion and not just debate on one thread on loomio about a proposal, as this could strain our bonds and our solidarity. I think @Ana Ulin's experience with IDM is insightful and precautionary. See the thread for more information.

I think it is still safe to practice and try it out a few more times to learn more and I abstain from consenting or objecting to the CWG doing it since I am not on it yet.

MN

Matt Noyes Thu 27 Feb

I think this kind of exchange is what it's all about. There are a lot of important questions about whether and how to use this approach. Experimenting with it in a working group - if the members of that working group choose to do so -- might give us a better sense of the (dis)advantages of using it.

MN

Matt Noyes Thu 27 Feb

Meta: Just realized I set up the poll so that all votes are anonymous -- that seems unhelpful! I meant to give people the option. Lesson learned.

MN

Matt Noyes Tue 3 Mar

Meta: the time for taking objections is almost up. The next thing to do is integration.

Integration (objections to completion)

Once all objections have been surfaced then we can complete integration. This includes understanding the concerns and checking that each objection meets the validation criteria. Your facilitator should pick one objection at a time and integrate it via open discussion to create an amended version of the proposal. It’s important that the proposal in its changed form still resolves the proposer’s tension. In other words, it would be pointless to change the proposal so that it no longer addresses the need that put it on the table in the first place, though how that need gets met may be different than the way the proposer initially conceived. This process is repeated for all valid objections, remembering that new objections may be raised as we change the proposal. When there are no further objections, the proposal has passed.

MN

Matt Noyes Tue 3 Mar

Here are the objections I see. @Mica Fisher do you want to try testing these for validity?

  1. "For myself, this kind of formal process is over-elaborate and of limited appeal."

  2. "some recognition of the concentric circles of organizational closeness a la the DisCO ideas would be useful to set expectations for these more-formal processes. Like, who expects whom to participate?"

  3. "Might also be good to opt-in for notifications of votes, if possible, so when the proposal notification arrives in my email reader I could opt-in for the rest of the chatter and vote.."

  4. "Before committing to 6 months of practicing this, we should do a thorough analysis and compare all of the similar options for decision making that fits with our needs and structures. I like comparison shopping and I would like to get more input from experienced individuals and organizations that have a similar mission and operating procedures. My amendment to the proposal is to make a call to organize a more or less formal panel or committee with the goal of making sure we are safe to try this, which we are now doing here a bit. I would like a digest of the available information about all the decision making processes. Maybe try this process a few more times before committing to it for 6 months....
    "One of the potential risks /harm I was thinking about is related to what @mike_hales was saying on the thread for this on social.coop. We discovered that using this process on loomio exclusively was not the most ideal, that we need to maintain the informal forms of discussion and not just debate on one thread on loomio about a proposal, as this could strain our bonds and our solidarity. I think @Ana Ulin's experience with IDM is insightful and precautionary. See the thread for more information."

MF

Mica Fisher Tue 3 Mar

My thoughts on these:

  1. I don't see this as a valid objection, but a personal preference

  2. I see this as slightly outside the scope of the proposal, but something to keep in mind as we practice integrative consent. What do you think?

  3. Similar to #2

  4. Also something that is helpful to be reviewed, but doesn't stand in the way of the proposal as @Jonathan Bean seemed to land on abstaining.

    Overall, I don't see any amendments to the proposal, but rather nuances to keep in mind and discuss with the CWG if the proposal passes.

MN

Matt Noyes Tue 3 Mar

I agree - it seems important to specify who is expected to participate in the integrative consent process and why. It seems to be designed to be used by defined teams or working groups, or small organizations. I will rewrite the proposal and submit v3 for another round of objections. If there are not any, we can consider it accepted.

👤

Anonymous
Abstain
Tue 3 Mar

I'm abstaining. I think that sociocracy is a great tool (and let's be honest, this is really just a rebranded version of sociocracy), but it also requires on-going training for those using it and how will this organizing on-board new members into using it? I'm a bit worried that without a plan for engagement and training, that it will become only a few who "know the rules". I would suggest that the CWG also be tasked with developing a process to train members.

MN

Matt Noyes started a proposal Tue 3 Mar

Social.Coop's Community Working Group should try using an integrative consent process for our online decision-making. (V3) Closed Tue 3 Mar

Outcome
by Matt Noyes Tue 3 Mar

mistake, will re-propose

The Community Working Group should experiment with the integrative consent method described by Loomio/Roundsky for its decision-making on Loomio, with a review of the process in six months to see if it should be continued and/or used in other working groups or whole group decisions.

REMEMBER: This purpose of this thread is to experiment with an integrative consent process. We are learning by doing, practicing the model as we make a decision about this proposal.

Results
Agree - 0
Abstain - 0
Disagree - 0
Block - 0
0 people have voted (0%)
MN

Matt Noyes started a proposal Tue 3 Mar

Social.Coop's Community Working Group should try using an integrative consent process for our online decision-making. (V3) Closed Tue 10 Mar

Outcome
by Matt Noyes Wed 11 Mar

"When there are no further objections, the proposal has passed." On this basis the proposal -- Social.Coop's Community Working Group should try using an integrative consent process for our online decision-making -- has passed. As this was primarily an exercise for learning how to use an integrative consent (IC) process, before the CWG actually uses it, we should check in to see if there are objections.

  • Something like 15 people participated in the process (out of a SC Loomio membership of 221). This is one lesson: IC seems better suited to specific teams or working groups.

  • Most of the discussion took place in the Loomio thread, but there was also interesting discussion on the Mastodon instance. (#integrativeconsent) Another lesson: it is good to specify where/how to hold discussion (though that could be in multiple places).

  • The CWG Ops Team discussed the process and felt that it was more process than we need in our small group, but worth considering for the CWG as a whole when we have a proposal.

  • Feel free to post other feedback, thoughts, conclusions on the thread.

The Community Working Group should experiment with the integrative consent method described by Loomio/Roundsky for its decision-making on Loomio, with a review of the process in six months to see if it should be continued and/or used in other working groups or whole group decisions.

REMEMBER: This purpose of this thread is to experiment with an integrative consent process. We are learning by doing, practicing the model as we make a decision about this proposal.

Results
Consent - 8
Abstain - 2
Objection - 0
10 people have voted (4%)
👤

Anonymous
Consent
Tue 3 Mar

JB

Jonathan Bean
Consent
Tue 3 Mar

BH

Bob Haugen
Consent
Tue 3 Mar

👤

Anonymous
Consent
Tue 3 Mar

I think its good for us to experiment with decision making processes. I wonder if this methodology may be a bit complex (and offputting) for folks given levels of engagement, but given that CWG has been somewhat inactive, with most related stuff happening in the Commjnity Ops Team, I think its low risk, and the activity is likely to provide benefits

D

Darren Tue 3 Mar

I abstain from consenting or objecting to the CWG doing it since I am not on it yet.

@Jonathan Bean As it may not be completely clear to everyone the CWG is open for any Social Coop member to join & participate within as they see fit. It operates via a Loomio sub grouo.

D

Darren
Consent
Tue 3 Mar

I think its good for us to experiment with decision making processes. I wonder if this methodology may be a bit complex (and offputting) for folks given levels of engagement, but given that CWG has been somewhat inactive, with most related stuff happening in the Community Ops Team, I think its low risk, and the activity is likely to provide benefits

Z

Zee
Abstain
Tue 3 Mar

MF

Mica Fisher
Consent
Tue 3 Mar

MN

Matt Noyes
Consent
Wed 4 Mar

J

JohnKuti
Consent
Wed 4 Mar

I think a lot of people are stressing the trial or experimental aspect here. I agree with that. How about drawing up a list of questions to be answered at the end of the six-month period. For example:

  1. Who actually participated, proposed and facilitated? Who should?

  2. Has it put people off because of complexity?

  3. should there be limits on the type or number of proposals to be discussed?

COT

Creature Of The Hill
Consent
Wed 4 Mar

DM

David Mynors
Abstain
Wed 4 Mar

MC

Matthew Cropp
Consent
Mon 9 Mar

C

caseyg Mon 20 Jul

Just wanted to say thanks for this thread @Matt Noyes! I learned a lot.