Should we use Integrative Consent for decision-making in Social.Coop?
Matt Noyes
Public
Seen by 73
This purpose of this thread is to experiment with an integrative consent process as described here: https://help.loomio.org/en/guides/consent_process/ 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.
Matt Noyes Tue 25 Feb 2020 10:05PM
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!
Matt Noyes Tue 25 Feb 2020 11:25PM
"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."
Poll Created Tue 25 Feb 2020 11:45PM
Consent, Abstain, Objections: Social.Coop should use an integrative consent process for our online decision-making. (V2) Closed Tue 3 Mar 2020 11:03PM
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
| Results | Option | % of points | Voters | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Consent | 41.7% | 5 | |
| Abstain | 50.0% | 6 | ||
| Objection | 8.3% | 1 | ||
| Undecided | 0% | 0 |
12 of 12 people have participated (100%)
Anonymous
Wed 26 Feb 2020 9:43AM
I’m happy for CWG to experiment. For myself, this kind of formal process is over-elaborate and of limited appeal.
Anonymous
Wed 26 Feb 2020 12:51PM
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
Wed 26 Feb 2020 3:40PM
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.
Anonymous
Wed 26 Feb 2020 5:50PM
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.
Anonymous
Tue 3 Mar 2020 5:10PM
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.
Anonymous
Tue 3 Mar 2020 9:16PM
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
Jonathan Bean · Mon 24 Feb 2020 7:17PM
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.