Decision Making steps

The following document describes the process and steps we use to make decisions. Not all of these have to be followed and they don’t have to be done in order. Some steps (or all of them) may also be done asynchronously and with or without rounds. Or any variation thereof depending on the context and the culture they are applied in (offline/online, good/bad connectivity, etc.). On how to do these steps in a meeting (and a general meeting guide) see the Synchronous meeting guide document.

Each step has a tag, that corresponds to a specific aspect of decision making, in the title inside square brackets “[]”. These tags are:

exploration is gathering ideas, feedback and constraints to create a proposal, in this case the “Understanding the topic”, “Share considerations on the topic” and “Share ideas” steps are done.
synthesis is creating a proposal, in this case the facilitator should follow from the “Proposal forming” step.
review is for reviewing proposals, when their date of next review has come, and see if the proposal is still working or if it needs changes. (the “[Review] Review an existing proposal” step below under the “[Decision] Consent”)
decision is giving feedback to a proposal and making a decision, in this case the steps starting from “Present the proposal” shall be followed.

Each topic’s tag is decided by the facilitator, the logbook keeper, the coordinator and the proposal author (or the roles that exist at the time in the circle).

[Exploration] Understanding the topic

A topic may be brought to the attention of the circle by anybody (individual or group (formal or informal - state recognized or not)) from inside or outside the circle.

The circle is expected to actively gather wide feedback about the topic both relating to the questions below, but also about constraints, ideas, and efforts that have already been made (if any) by others. The more diverse feedback and experiences we gather the better the proposal will become, not everybody that is affected or can contribute their experiences is in our spaces. We should make an effort to reach out to people that are not here and empathise/advocate for the people that cannot contribute or make their voices heard.

Some list of examples for gathering feedback (that is not exhaustive):

asking a more general circle for input, through delegates. The more general circle may have a higher level understanding since more circles and domains are involved.
asking a more domain specific circle that is a subset of the current circle through their delegates.
creating an temporary circle together with people affected and deciding by consent (thus getting them involved directly in the decision making process).
asking specific people for input that may be knowledgable on the topic.
ask for feedback from parts or the whole collective/organization/community.

It is important before proposing ideas to take time to understand the topic we are trying to solve and why it exists. The aim is for everybody by the end of this step to be able to answer the following questions:

What is the problem we are trying to solve?
Why does this problem exist?/ Why does this idea need to exist?
What is the impact of this problem?/ What is the impact of us doing something?
Who is affected by this?
Can we potentially do anything about this?
Is this our responsibility? There may be a case where the current circle is not able to make decisions for the domain the topic applies to, in this case the circle should forward the topic to the appropriate circle.

The circle will be ultimately responsible for this decision so the topic should be presented in a way that is understood by everybody or that allows people to understand enough to delegate the solution to somebody they trust.

There may be cases where a person from the circle may phrase a potential objection towards any action for a topic, warning the circle of unintended consequences. In that case the facilitator should refer to the Objections document and see if the potential objection is an objection. If it is, then the circle may decide to do nothing. Its important for the circle (and individuals in the circle) to realize that sometimes not doing anything, may be the best option for a topic. This can happen because:

The circle lacks the experience, diversity, knowledge to act effectively (its okay to say “I/We do not know”)
The act of doing may bring more constraints than it actually solves (structural, technical, social)
It may bring more complexity than the circle or the community can handle (structural, technical, social)
The circle may need more research to increase knowledge and outreach to people affected before deciding they can do something
It may bring the circle in a position where it forces its culture and subjective morality on others. See White Savior and Charity. In these cases the circle should opt for empowering the affected people to be able to do self-determination independently and help alleviate any roadblocks, hierarchies or structural problems instead.

See also the Not Doing page and the Observe First page in the permacomputing principles.

Before sharing ideas, the group needs to gather considerations around a topic. These are:

The priorities that are important for a proposal to have, so that the group can focus on what is important.
The specific issue(s) that the proposal should address.
The concerns and harmful consequences (potential objections) that the group should be wary of while drafting the proposal.
The different people and groups affected by the proposal that should be participating in the drafting of the proposal.
The knowledge and feelings of everybody in the circle around the topic.

This way we make sure everybody is on the same page and agrees what a proposal should and should not address.

After everybody has understood the topic and they have shared their perspectives, its time to share ideas around what a proposal or action would look like. All ideas should be informed from the steps that came before (understanding the topic and sharing of views around the topic) and any feedback that was gathered from outside the circle. The ideas can contradict each other, and they don’t need to be phrased as a concrete plan, but members should weigh the pros and cons of each idea. Concrete steps on how to take action and/or create a proposal will be taken later.

The facilitator should guide the discussion around people’s needs and concerns instead of debates. This is done by asking questions in a way that helps people phrase their preferences well, making it clear that is the step where we just share ideas and not a “realistic”, “final” or “concrete” step, and self-reflect on their ideas and opinions.

[Synthesis] Proposal forming

This step is for agenda items with the goal of “synthesis” and doesn’t have to be done by the whole circle. The RFC template can be used from the governance document if desired.

Sometimes it may be desirable to craft a proposal without involving the whole circle. This may be done for example because a person is more knowledgable, the proposal requires research or feedback from others or the circle doesn’t have enough time. Good proposals capture not only the entire spectrum of opinions and feedback that was shared in the circle but also the feedback and the opinions that were shared outside of the circle.

Not all ideas need to be followed, but all the feedback (concerns/ideas/objections/suggestions) should be added to the proposal. This can be done for example by:

Taking different aspects of each idea and combining them (it is up to the facilitator to guide the process so everybody is heard and satisfied with the outcome)
Clarifying what is the result/impact we expect by implementing the proposal, and how to measure that
Making the date of the next review (where we check if the proposal works), sooner or later
Seeing if any argument is an objection, objections help bring the attention of the group to a proposal that may have harmful consequences. (for more information see the Objections section in this document)

Note that this step (Synthesis) is about creating the proposal around general - high-level agreements/ideas that the circle have (and any people/groups affected). The facilitator should remind the group not to stress over details at this time because the proposal can (and probably will) change after announcing it publicly for feedback by the community and people/groups affected. For the steps to go over the proposal in detail (and reach consensus on the proposal) the circle will continue after sufficient time has passed to gather feedback.

It is important to be aware and honest what is just a preference (it would be nice to have but its not critical), an opinion (I like this solution personally), a concern (I am worried about this proposal and would like some assurances) and a potential objection (this proposal undermines fundamental values of the circle or our community (see the “Check if it is an objection” step in the Objections Document) and should not happen). Try to remember the important issues we try to solve and avoid from the exploration steps. We should do what is best not just for us, but also the circle and the overall community, by putting our ego aside.

We aim for equity not equality. As already mentioned not all opinions are of equal weight due to experience, privilege, impact, status or knowledge. Individuals and groups (formal or informal - state recognized or not) that are directly affected by this proposal should be involved directly without waiting for them to see the proposal. This can be done by contacting them directly and asking for their opinion, include them in decision making (with delegates), involving them in proposal drafts and taking their concerns and potential objections (if any) seriously.

After the proposal have been synthesized adequate time is left for individuals and groups (from inside and outside the circle) to react to the proposal and it is shared with the wider community for feedback.

[Decision] Present the proposal

The first step to make a decision about a Proposal is to present it to the circle. This is done because even if the proposal was formed by the circle (in the synthesis step), the feedback that was taken from the community has most likely changed the proposal. Presenting it helps get everybody on the same page and see what changed so they can give their informed consent.

The presentation should be understandable by all members to a sufficient enough degree that they can give their consent to the proposal, by avoiding technical jargon and adapting the presentation to the audience’s knowledge and experiences. All materials and documents of the presentation (including the RFC if applicable) should be available before and after the presentation, for all people to read it at their discretion.

[Decision] Clarifying Questions

It is important before phrasing any opinions about a proposal that everybody understands what the proposal is and take the time to resolve any misunderstandings about it. Note that while members can ask “What does this mean”, questioning “why” or “how” is not done in this step. The focus is only to understand what is written in the proposal without any judgment.

The facilitator needs to be able to guide the discussion towards understanding the proposal instead of commenting on the proposal or disagreeing with it.

This step follows with the basic principle of the Code of Conduct that says “Assume good faith”. All members should assume (unless explicitly told otherwise) that the person presenting the proposal has researched the topic, knows about the topic and cares about the well being of the group and the community’s. A proposal should be approached from a place of curiosity towards a topic that the members were potentially not aware of before the proposal was presented.

[Decision] Quick reactions round

Now that everybody has a clear understanding of what the proposal is about, its time to hear everybody’s thoughts and feelings on the proposal. These can be positive, concerns, or anything else around the proposal. They also can be just general thoughts about the proposal. Communities thrive on feelings of gratitude, appreciation and encouragement. Take the time to appreciate the effort and care the person took to write and present the proposal to the circle.

This step may surface concerns or potential objections with the proposal (the objections will be identified later), but it also helps in seeing the proposal through other people’s perspective. This step is meant to be short so people should only give a short statement on what they think or feel about the proposal and they don’t have to say what the potential objection is, or if they consent to the proposal. Longer form discussions will happen at the “Consent Round” step.

Avoiding discussions and replies on what each person says, helps keep the discussion focused and creates an environment where everybody is encouraged to share without being afraid they will have to “justify” their position or be prepared to defend themselves at a moment’s notice.

If there are too many concerns or objections it can be a sign that the proposal needs to go back to the exploration steps and/or time for more feedback before going through the decision making process again.

Now that all the different perspectives on the proposal have been voiced, its time to decide on the proposal. As a community we want to enable people to contribute and create change while also stopping harmful change from taking place. This is done by altering the proposal according to feedback and concerns (as documented in the Synthesis step, the current step and the Integrating Objections step).

Everybody voices their opinions around the proposal and the facilitator collects all the feedback said by members in three different aspects:

Concerns: Concerns are possibly harmful effects that a proposal may have if it is implemented. The author and circle should listen to the concern, understand if it is a concern or an objection and decide how to integrate it into the proposal.
Potential objections: Objections are concerns that can be defined against a specific place in the Governance or Circle documents. The facilitator guides the circle to resolve each potential objection separately, by using the objection process. Refer to the Objections document.
Small corrections: These can be typos, wording, grammar, or other small corrections to the proposal that help clarify or correct what is already written.

Everybody is encouraged to voice concerns or potential objections even if they are not sure which of the two it is or do not know exactly what their concern is. It is up to the circle to discuss with the person voicing the concern and understand what it is about. If during the discussion of a concern it is discovered that it may fulfill the criteria to be an objection (see the Objections document), then the circle should follow the objection process instead for that concern.

They should also try to give platform to people who may be more quiet or not as sure and see that nobody dominates the discussion (see also the facilitation, the values and the principles sections). As it has been written before, the circle is part of a whole and has a responsibility to the people in {Community Name}, to people outside of {Community Name}, to the wider community and to people that don’t share their expertise. Not everybody will be happy with the proposal, but everybody’s opinion will be respected and considered (whether in the circle or not).

As wrote in the “Safe enough to try” principle (in the Values of Decision Making document), the facilitator doesn’t ask in this step if everybody agrees (as done usually in consesus). Instead they ask “Is this proposal safe enough to try? Does anybody have any potential objections to the proposal going forward?” If nobody has a potential objection (see the objections section on how to identify them), then after all the feedback has been gathered and acted on, they ask for consent and the facilitator makes it clear that the proposal has passed. The only options at this round is “consent” or “object”. The idea is that if somebody doesn’t want to consent then there are concerns that haven’t been voiced. See also the “Accountability” and “Plurality” sections under “Values of Consensus” section.

Consent here contrary to voting or traditional consensus does NOT mean that somebody agrees with the proposal. When the facilitator asks “Is this proposal safe enough to try? Does anybody have any potential objections to the proposal going forward?” it means:

Is this proposal safe enough to try? Does it harm/go against the aims of the Circle/{Community Name}, or goes against the values and principles outlined in the Circle Documents/agreement, Governance or Code of Conduct?
Do we trust that the person/people/group that put the proposal forward are acting in good faith and want the best for {Community name}/the circle?
Do we trust that the decision making process was followed and that all objections and feedback was addressed?

The circle should take care to listen to delegates from other circles or from outside of {Community Name}. Listening to their concerns is vital to create good proposals and build trust. If the circle makes a decision and the community is angry or disappointed that is a sign the circle failed to describe the thought-process and constraints that led them to the decision or get enough feedback and involve the people affected.

Big alterations to the proposal, like for example a different approach or significantly altering a large amount of the proposal, its implementation or its scope, should not be done here. Instead the facilitator can start a process round to decide what to do next. The outcome of the process round could be for example getting the proposal back to the exploration phase, or involve people that feel strongly about the proposal to propose a new version of it with the author or something else. Note that this does not block the proposal from going forward unless these changes are part of an objection (see the objections section on what are objections).

This helps create a culture that:

respects the time and effort that went into each proposal while encouraging change. all proposals are accepted unless they are blocked by objections.
respects the concern and feelings of people that are affected by a proposal and enables them to change it and propose a new version of it.

[Review] Review an existing RFC

RFCs are reviewed periodically by the circle to make sure they are still working as intended and they are not obsolete or need changes. This helps keep the amount of active RFCs low, as current/well-written as possible, and also helps with self-reflection around what works and what doesn’t.

When the “date-of-next-review” time that has been agreed has come (written in the RFC metadata), the RFC is added to the agenda with the tag [Review]. The facilitator shall guide the circle to decide whether the RFC is still working as intended or if it needs changes or is obsolete. The process used is the same as the decision making process starting from the “[Decision] Present the proposal” step.

If it is obsolete, it shall be archived and be no longer in use. The procedure to archive an RFC is up to each circle, but the RFC should still be visible for historical purposes. If the RFC is still good the field “date-of-next-review” shall be changed to the next time the proposal is reviewed.

Passing

Passing is a deliberate choice that a circle member can make in two circumstances:

When doing rounds or asking people of their opinions at any step of the Decision making process (or during a meeting in general). Passing means that other people have already said what you wanted to say and there is nothing more to add. This shows trust in the group and self-confidence.
When the circle can decide to have a meeting about a decision or when a person doesn’t have time to get involved in a decision making process. In these cases the person can either work with the facilitator to change the timeline of the decision/time of the meeting or they may choose to “pass”. Passing means that they will be written in the minutes as “{person} is passing”. Any kind of feedback on a specific proposal will not be taken into account and the proposal will not be affected by their feedback. The facilitator may choose to write down their feedback in the minutes for transparency reasons.

Note that passing doesn’t mean a person can “opt-out” of being co-responsible for a proposal. All members of a circle are still co-responsible whether they pass or not, if a person passes they just choose to be responsible but without voicing their feedback or influencing the proposal in anyway. It is up to the Circle to decide what to do if a member passes consistently a lot of proposals or chooses to not help/be co-responsible for them.

See the “Why are the only choices for a decision consent and object?” section in the Values of Decision Making document on why “passing” is not anything more.

[Decision] Proposal implementation

Now that a proposal has been decided, the circle decides how the proposal should be implemented, picks a “date-of-next-review” (if the proposal is an RFC) and picks a person to implement the proposal. A detailed action plan to complete the proposal is key to make sure that the time the circle gave to write and/or decide the proposal wasn’t wasted and helps with motivation within the group. It also helps the coordinator later and helps with making the work of the circle transparent.

Sometimes this can be easy, for example the person that wrote the proposal wants to implement it, or a knowledgable person volunteers. There are times when its not that clear who is going to implement the proposal. Either a lot of people want to do it, or its not clear who should do the work. For these cases the circle can use the “Role Selection” process described in the Role Selection document.

Some questions that should be answered by this step (and recorded in the meeting minutes) are:

Who (or which people if there are more than one) will implement the proposal?
What work will be done by the person/people?
What is the timeline to implement the proposal?
What happens if they need help or don’t have time/spoons?
How can the group check that the work is taking place/has happened?
What is the date that was decided the RFC will be up for review again? (This is in case the proposal is an RFC from the Governance document)

Keyboard shortcuts

Vojkruco