Values of Decision Making

In {Community name} we are using Consensus decision making that has been heavily influenced by the Sociocracy way of decision making, the Seeds for Change collective and consensus decision making in general.

With this decision making process the aim is NOT elimination of power (elimination of power is not possible - whether conscious or unconsciously we all have and exercise power), it is not to make the whole process completely structureless so that its not clear what is decided/by who/when and it is not to sweep all biases and prejudices under the rug and be “apolitical” or “neutral” (that doesn’t exist either).

This Decision Making process aims to distribute power in the community and circles so that each person has self-determination but also respects the self determination of others. If the structure of a community is clear and everybody respects what is written, there is accountability, transparency and inclusivity on how to get involved and change things. All members advocate and speak up against injustices, self-relflect on their biases and commit to educate themselves on different experiences and cultures. We are embracing the fact that we do not know everything and we may be wrong, while acknowledging that we can’t leave our biases at the door (no one can). Instead of pretending they don’t exist (or hiding them), we put them out in the open, call them out and decostruct them collectively.

As wrote in the “[Decision] Consent” step above, the point of consent is for everybody to combine their ideas and come up with a proposal that covers as much (if not all) the feedback (ideas/opinions/concerns/objections) of the circle as possible. This is done by finding what each person can live with today (consent) and what is harmful for the circle or/and the community (concerns/objections). It is not the goal to find a proposal that everybody accepts (such a proposal doesn’t exist), or a proposal that finds the “middle-ground”. This will only serve to reduce diversity of opinions for the sake of finding an agreement.

Giving people a third (or fourth or fifth) choice, like abstain/agree with concerns/etc. was considered, but was rejected because:

people will be pushed to make that other choice so the group can “move on”
it will long-term widen divisions and contempt in the group. It will be seen as “You have an obligation to me because I let your proposal pass”, “I have sacrificed myself for the group by letting proposals pass”
there will be clear division of the group on each proposal, between the people that wanted the proposal (and agreed) and the people that made the other choice. This will lead to “I don’t have to work on the proposal because I never wanted it”, “I had concerns but I didn’t care to voice them because I don’t want to work on this anyway”, “This is your part of the group so I’m not going to help”.
there will be less effort to accommodate the needs of everybody because people are expected to “stand aside” or not care.

By having only these two choices, the group can build tolerance for different opinions, trust and respect for all members while encouraging participation.

Principles

Safe enough to try

We know and are embracing the fact that we (as {Community name} and individuals) do not know everything, either because we lack experience, time or both, and no proposal/decision will be perfect or last forever. That is why we do not seek to convince each other (agreements), push a person to “stand aside” or to be convinced something will work, instead we seek people that want to experiment, learn and self-reflect. Proposals are decided by concluding that: “This proposal looks safe enough to try, after seeing it in action we can roll it back or change it”. We do this by seeking and incorporating objections.

This is reflected also in how we ask for consent during decision making. Instead of asking for what everybody wants/if everybody agrees, we ask whether there are reasons not to go ahead and if everybody consents. Those reasons would take the form of an objection. For the definition of objections, how to test if an argument is a objection and how to integrate them in a proposal see Objections document.

Objections are encouraged (and actively sought as stated) and are important feedback that makes the circle aware of harmful or unintended consequences about a proposal. This is the complete opposite to some other consensus models where a block is seen as an obstacle to be fixed, or the forced rejection of a proposal by the group (because one person decided unilaterally to reject it).

This aims to solve a chronic issue in consensus (in the sense of: we “have to” agree) where decision making ends up either polarized between for/against or the people that want to do things end up being blocked from a minority of people just because they can block and as a consequence decision making power lies with the person that blocks. Some other benefits are:

Instead of competing with different proposals/ideas or being given the choice of for/against, we cooperate and integrate all feedback (concerns/objections/ideas/suggestions) into one proposal.
People feeling more safe to voice their opinions, because they know it will affect the proposal directly instead of having to create a whole separate proposal and advocate for it.
There is co-responsibility and no one is ignored since there are no “stand-aside”.

Participatory decisions

We are aware that not everybody can or wants to be part of decision making, and we practise participatory decision making to counter that (see also our Governance document and the Code of Conduct). Meritocracy/do-ocracy/volunteers (as used in tech where volunteers are doing whatever they want disregarding the community) is a dead-end that gives power to already established privileged groups. To create a healthy and diverse community we practise Participatory decision making to counter that.

Making decisions in a participatory way includes both seeking/including people that are affected/knowledgable and putting the needs of the community as a whole above the needs of us as individuals.

When forming proposals (see RFCs in the Governance document, if the proposal is an RFC) we actively seek and include people that are affected by said proposal and the wider community, in an effort to collect feedback and integrate it into the proposal. After the decision is taken we write in a document (inside the RFC if that template was used) why, how and what decision we took and publish it in a public place so that transparency and trust can be build. In this way we commit ourselves to listen and follow the needs and wishes of the circle/{Community name}/wider community while also listening to feedback across that spectrum.

This process helps bring transparency to the decision making process and how decisions are done. It also helps build a feedback-loop where people that are affected/knowledgable but not involved in the decision can change proposals directly or affect how things are done.

As written in the Governance document and the Code of Conduct), we (as {Community name} and as individuals) have responsibility to the people that can’t contribute in our area of expertise (because of knowledge, time or other reasons), or are not able yet to contribute, to give them platform and hear their feedback. We have a responsibility to take them into account and accommodate them. A community thrives on diversity of ideas, contributions, experiences and we recognize the imbalance of power that comes from people not having knowledge of all areas required to develop software or not have the ability or privilege to do it. We work on deconstructing all hierarchies and enabling people to be heard when we are in a position that we can do that.

Decentralized-autonomous decision making

We do not make decisions all together. We build trust with other circles that all the people affected will be heard and respected but not necessarily involved in decision making (outside of delegates). Instead we have circles that interact with each other and decide according to their domain they are responsible for. This makes it so:

People have more impact on decisions being made instead of in a bigger assembly where their feedback will get lost and only for/against positions matter.
Decisions are made by affected/knowledgable people, based on self-determination and direct action instead of trying to convince people that don’t care or that do not know about the topic.
Tighter circles (circles should not go above 10-13 members) that can be more familiar with each other, more empathetic and take more time to listen or deliberate.
Scalable while not compromising inclusivity. We can create as many circles as needed without having to resort to voting systems, restricting who decides, or making the decision just a yes/no choice.

While not everybody is involved in decision making, each circle has multiple ways to get feedback and people affected can influence what decisions are made. See also the “[Exploration] Understanding the topic” and the “[Decision] Consent Round” steps.

Values

Plurality

We welcome, encourage and actively seek different viewpoints and disagreements to deepen our understanding of a proposal and to see experiences outside of our purview. We acknowledge that we each of us has more or less privilege in society and that we all have different experiences and backgrounds that contribute to plurality.

To do that we use rounds (see the Facilitation Handbook Document), have a mediation team, have a Code of Conduct, participatory decision making (as noted in the participatory section above) and also have facilitators that guide the decision making process and structure the conversations. We cultivate a culture where all people have the space and the time to voice their ideas, needs and opinions, and nobody gets “tone-policed” or harrassed/bulied/shamed for speaking.

Consensus requires us to be open/honest about our needs and be clear about what is just a preference compared to a concern. We acknowledge that we will never get exactly what we want and we work to find shared ground with others in the circle where all of our shared needs are met. We can only arrive at good decisions/proposals through disagreements and sometimes conflict. Having conflicts and disagreements is a necessary part of consensus as not everybody has the same experiences, views or ideas.

Making decisions “quick”, “easy” and “unanimous” will result in pushing people “out of the way”, homogeneity, fear of speaking up/taking away expression and dominating of discussions by a few people. We acknowledge that by making decisions with plurality they are going to take longer to make, but that is a tradeoff that we are willing to make.

Plurality is lessened not only about conscious ways power is exercised but also unconscious ways. We make an effort to be open about our biases, privileges and commit to decostruct them and all hierarchies that we recognise. (see also the Feedback section below)

Listening

Consensus depends a lot on the circle deciding together, there is no debate and we do not try to be the loudest in the room or the one that argues for a longer time. Listening means focusing on the person that is talking instead of thinking how to respond to them.

We try to understand the other person’s perspective, feelings and experiences. Do not assume, instead ask questions to deepen your understanding or encourage a person to voice their views. All emotions and expressions are valid, and everybody has needs that they want to fill.

Remember that all of us have different backgrounds, experiences and privileges. We don’t all have the same platform, confidence or ways to express ourselves. We should be conscious every time somebody speaks (or doesn’t speak) of not only what the person is saying but also the context and the background the person has. The way somebody is saying something shows how important the issue is for them or what kind of background they have related to the discussion.

Questioning

Questions help us understand the perspective of everybody in the circle, but they need to be phrased with care to encourage participation in the circle. We try to avoid asking questions in a way that is:

accusatory - “You are the only one that disagrees, Why do you disagree?”, “Why are you trying to derail this proposal?”
asking for proof - “I understand that doing “this” makes you feel like “this” will happen, can you list some studies for that?“, “I have never felt how you feel. Do you know any people that do?”
interogating - asking a question one after another (usually with yes/no answer implied) to try to lead the person towards a specific decision
putting the person in the corner - “We all have a consensus here except for you. Can you tell us why you disagree?”

Questions can help us and others deepen our reasoning and self-reflect. We ask open-ended questions (where we do not expect a simple yes/no answer), ask clarifying questions on what we do not understand and offer summaries of what we heard asking if that is correct. We try to be honest and specific in our statements to avoid being misinterpreted.

Feedback

Feedback is the foundational value of everything we do at {Community name}. This has been mentioned in the Governance and in our Code of Conduct, here it will be mentioned in the context of making decisions and organizing work.

It is important to speak up when we see something done well or wrong as soon as we notice something so that the feedback is impactful and resentment doesn’t settle. Good feedback can help built trust and appreciation for our work, while critical feedback can build a safer culture that aims for self-reflection from its participants. We all participate and help build the culture we want to see in {Community name} by speaking our mind and being confident about what we believe. People affect each other, even if we do not intend to, and there is a variety of ways we can make things easier on others and help everybody fulfill their needs.

Before giving critical feedback try to collect your own thoughts and feelings and be clear with yourself what you want to achieve by giving that feedback. There are cases where that is not possible because either the situation is actively harmful or the person you are giving the feedback to - has developed a pattern. As it is said elsewhere all feelings are welcome and we will not tone-police people that try to speak up. If it is easier for another person or the mediation circle to speak on your behalf you are encouraged to do so.

Be conscious of the power balance that exists between the group and between you and the person you are giving or receiving the feedback from. Not all of us have the same privilege and we all have our preconceptions and prejudices that we come with into the group. In contrast with other communities we do not pretend we are neutral or “apolitical” but instead we openly acknowledge that each of us is affected by biases and has always more learning to do and more hierarchies of oppression to deconstruct. We make the effort to speak up when we see things happen and give platform to others to have equity.

When giving critical feedback try to:

make sure that the feedback is welcome at that moment, and the person is open to it. Not all times are the same and sometimes people are tired or out of spoons.
talk from a place that describes your own feelings and how you felt when the situation happened. Don’t try to assume what any participant meant/intended at the time or put blame on anybody instead leave the opportunity open for the person to explain. The purpose of this is to leave the opportunity for reconciliation open and to not get the other person into a state where they feel they have to defend themselves.
remember that every person comes into the circle with their own experiences and has their own needs. All beings deserve respect and our good faith before assuming things.
Consider the time and place. Not all feedback should be told privately or publicly, not all people deal with feedback the same way when it is given to them in public.

When receiving feedback try to:

not speak immediately in the form of justification, an emotionally-charged reaction, asking for proof, saying they have misunderstood, or you “don’t see it”. You can ask for details (with care as not to do what was listed), but don’t expect necessarily an answer. It is up to you to self-reflect, learn and talk with people that are willing to talk to you about this issue.
reply to the person giving the feedback after some time of self-reflection and delibaration (with others if needed and willing to talk about this). Make sure that the reply is actually wanted, helpful, and it doesn’t fall into one of the forms listed above, or it is being defensive.
not hold the person that gives the critical feedback accountable for your feelings. Its okay to feel upset, angry or sad, but it is not fair to expect the person giving you the critical feedback to support you through your feelings or for you to “tone-police” them.

The aim of feedback is not to come at a compromise, where everybody involved has to “sacrifice” some of their comfort to meet in “the middle”. The aim is to understand each others needs as well as experiences and decide together how to fulfill those needs.

While it is encouraged to give direct feedback, sometimes that is not always possible. Either because:

all communication has broken down
the action the other person is a violation of the Code of Conduct or causes direct harm
its hard to talk to people and give feedback

In these cases it is advised to contact the Mediation Circle to take steps to mediate the situation.

Summarising

A summary is putting in a few words what was said, to make sure that we understood what was said and that we are all on the same page. Summaries can help with making it clear what the topic we are currently discussing is, what objections/concerns we are trying to resolve, or make it easy to understand what position each person in the circle has. Summarising is also invaluable in making people feel heard and understood.

Some things to keep in mind while summarising are:

Summaries carry more weight than just phrasing an opinion, keep the possibility that a summary is wrong or misses something that was said open for other people to correct, to avoid shutting down discussion. This can be done by asking for validation from the circle and by presenting the summary as a subjective interpretation of what was said.
Pick you words carefully. Sometimes it is crucial to use the exact same words that were used (for example when phrasing a concern, feelings or a potential objection), other times it is better to use your own words to describe what was said (either to make it more easily understood or because it can be shorter as a summary).

Synthesis

Synthesis is the process of finding the “common ground” that was described in the plurality section. It combines all feedback into one proposal that works for everyone both inside and outside the circle.

This is done by respecting all people’s concerns and individual needs, as well as listening to community and the people that are directly affected by the proposal at hand. Not everybody’s voice is equal (either because of experience, privilege, impact or knowledge) and some people are more assertive than others, so the circle and the facilitator need to do the work to reflect that in the proposal.

Accountability

We all take decisions together as a circle. We all share responsibility in implementing our decisions, doing our tasks and the outcomes of both. It is important to be open when we need help or don’t have time and also when we are working on something or when we have finished something (the way to do these is up to each circle).

Groups thrive when there is:

open communication about what is currently being worked on, when people don’t have time/don’t have enough spoons or are stuck.
when there is appreciation, words of encouragements and a culture of being free to ask questions.
when each person is free to be their whole self with all their range of emotions and any events that happen outside of the circle (more on this in the Decision Making steps).
when each person is free to voice disagreements or improvements that they observe and when they can have a direct impact to change things.

On the other hand groups break down when:

decisions are taken and never implemented.
when its not clear who is doing what and tasks are stuck in “limbo” for years.
when communication is closed and people don’t feel free to pick up tasks, don’t feel like they can ask for help and feel guilty for not doing tasks even if they have valid reasos for taking their time (feelings, events outside of the circle, spoons, etc.).

To help make our circles thrive we commit to:

have a culture of appreciation, sharing good news and giving space to others to do their work at their own pace.
make all decisions that were taken understood/clear and all work that needs to be done and who is going to do it. (see summarising above).
encourage each person to bring their whole self and be a human being (not a cog in the capitalist machine). This means that people have feelings, sometimes they are tired or not up to do much (spoons or anything else), stuff happens in their lives and its okay to talk about it/support, and some people are neurodivergent (autistic or adhd or anything else) or are 2SLGBTQIA+ in some way. All people are encouraged to be themselves and we don’t keep our personal lives at the door.

Why not

Voting/Majoritarian Democracy

It needs a lot of infrastructure to make it work, private, secure and valid. Most organization develop their own service or use a third party service.
It easily becomes majoritarian/pushes minorities aside. Even with supermajority rules 20% - 25% of people are not heard.
You can’t have nuance in voting, all suggestions and concerns are pushed aside for a “simple” yes/no choice.

Unanimity/blocking-consensus

Decisions can be blocked by anybody which makes newcomers discouraged. It also promotes “drive-by” blocks where the person doesn’t know the topic but still blocks the proposal.
People need to do a disproportionate amount of work to actually block a proposal or suggest something else. (often by needing to create a whole separate proposal)
We “must agree” to like a proposal otherwise it does not pass.
the people that do things get to decide (see do-ocracy), without having to listen to the community

Show of hands

Show of hands is a variant of majoritarian democracy so all its drawbacks apply, but also it doesn’t have privacy so much higher social pressure to conform.

Keyboard shortcuts

Vojkruco