Objections

Potential objections are phrased by a person in the circle, to warn for unintended or harmful consequences. This is done during exploration of a topic or when a proposal is decided, to bring up a perspective that the group may not have seen or considered. The well-known principle of “assume good faith” applies here. Any person voicing a concern or a potential objection is not an obstacle and it should not be assumed they want to block the proposal or stop the work the circle is doing. They want to see the proposal succeed just like everybody else, but they see ways that the proposal could better serve the community and fulfill its purpose.

As wrote in the “Plurality” section in the Values of Decision Making document, objections are not only encouraged/apreciated but actively sought and are important feedback during creating or consenting on a proposal. Without objections proposals would be either missing key feedback to make them effective or be harmful to the circle and/or the community.

Further reading on why this model is adopted see the sections “Safe enough to try” under Principles, “Plurality” and “Accountability” in the Values of Decision Making document and the “[Decision] Consent” step in the Decision Making Steps document.

Understand the objection

The first step in the objection process is to understand the potential objection.

The facilitator asks the person that phrased the potential objection to expand on their statement and say where they are coming from and why they see the proposal being harmful. They can also point out the exact place that the proposal will violate or do harm if they want, that is not required though.

The person that phrased the concern or potential objection may not know what the objection specifically is or be able to articulate it well enough for others to understand (due to emotions running high, language bariers or other reasons).

The circle does a round so that everybody can ask questions and share their thoughts around where the potential objection is coming from and the potential objection itself. It is up to the circle to do the work and find the underlying argument that the person phrasing the potential objection was trying to convey.

Check if it is an objection

After the objection is clear and everybody has understood it, it is time for the circle to decide if the potential objection is indeed an objection or not.

A concern or potential objection IS an objection if:

• it compromises a core value of {Community name} written in the Code of Conduct, Governance or any other Governance documents and Community-wide agreements. This includes any additional guidelines and frameworks that the community follows (Cooperative Software Guidelines, Permacomputing Guidelines, Consentful Tech, Security Guidelines etc.)
• the Circle document and/or the Circle agreement (if it exists), See the Circles Structure document for these documents.
• compromise the domain that the circle has the power to act in. For example the translations circle can not decide to shut down the spanish translations circle unilaterally or the website circle can’t decide what happens on the server.
• compromise the aim of the circle, aims are written in the Circle Document and they are the foundational goals and values of a circle.
• contradicts/goes against an earlier RFC that is still active or duplicates/obsoletes an RFC implicitly or explicitly (if the proposal is an RFC).

A concern or potential objection is NOT an objection if:

• the circle agrees that it does not fulfill any of the above criteria
• it has been decided by the circle that it was accounted for or has been integrated into the proposal

If the circle decides together with the facilitator that the potential objection is indeed an objection, the members explore options to integrate the objection into the proposal (if possible), see the next step below.

If instead the circle decides it is not an objection then the facilitator asks the person that raised the potential objection, if they are satisfied or if they want to refine/rephrase/reframe their argument. If the person making the objection is satisfied or all the parts of the potential objection have been addressed the circle moves back to the “[Decision] Consent” step to continue the decision making process.

Explore options

To resolve an objection that was identified, the circle needs to either integrate it into the proposal or remove the proposal from being considered. Integrating the objection into the proposal is always preferable since it respects the time and effort of the person/people that made the proposal while also respecting the person/group that brought up the objection. Our aim with this step is: “Can we modify the proposal in a way that all members find it safe enough to try it?”

Some examples of integrating the objection can be:

• changing some of the proposal (adding, removing, rephrasing, etc.)
• shortening the “date-of-next-rewiew” field so that the circle can reflect on the proposal sooner. The review date can be as short as the circle deems appropriate so that the proposal is closely monitored for harm.
• Adding additional criteria to the proposal to know when we have succeeded, in the “## How do we know we succeeded” field of the RFC template if the proposal is an RFC (see the Governance document). This can include metrics or effects that the circle needs to keep an eye on to measure the impact of the RFC. When a criteria has been reached the proposal can be changed or rendered inactive, this can happen either at the next review date or immediately after the criteria was reached, its up to the circle. Adding clear, transparent and specific criteria here is key to avoid ambiguity.
• creating a new temporary circle (see the Circles Structure document) or pick a person to change or craft a new proposal
• leaving some time for the circle to reflect on the objection and come back to the proposal or objection later
• if the objection relates to a domain of a circle that may know more (for example the objection is about accessibility), ask the delegator (if they exist in the current circle) or approach the circle to ask for feedback
• the objection may be not as significant compared to the potential benefits of the proposal or the effort of accounting for the objection is higher than just testing the proposal in action, so the circle may decide to do nothing

By integrating the objection the aim is to avoid getting stuck debating on a concern for a long time (and discourage people from participating or giving rise to “last person arguing wins” models). Instead it enables experimentation with new ideas and diversity of views provided the circle agrees its “safe enough to try”. It is always preferred to experiment and try to see how/if a proposal works in practise than endlessly debate about theoretical concerns that may never happen in practice. If any proposal turns out to be harmful the circle has transparent, documented and clear criteria for that (that have been reached/failed) so that it can be reverted easily.

Depending on how the circle decides to integrate the objection, different next steps can be decided to integrate it. After the objection has been integrated in a way that is good enough for all members, the circle moves back to the “[Decision] Consent” step to continue the decision making process.