This seems good to me.
I’m fine with the proposal to stop hiding objections/concerns. We can stick with the intention of considering our impressions before reading any concerns or objections. But indeed, we can see as we go how much we find that influence to be a problem.
Proposal is very long. I don’t think an initial process should start as something so complex. At least we need it down to something that my 11pm brain can process, otherwise it reduces my ability to participate by quite a bit (basically only on weekends when I won’t be tired from work).
edit: it’s possible that this is fix-able with formatting.
I very much like simplicity/shortness, so this is a great objection IMHO. Any ideas how we could fix this?
I think you might mean this by formatting: Reordering, adding headings, italicizing important stuff, etc but leaving the overall amount of text the same. Is this correct?
More radical ideas:
What does everyone think?
I like these so much that I would like to create a new, much simpler proposal (for a safety mechanism that gives us the confidence to do consent decisions in whichever way the initiator thinks is appropriate). However, I’m not 100% sure everyone else thinks this is the right thing to do – maybe people like the current proposal and want it to be fixed instead.
Before I write a new proposal, are there any objections to going forward like this? (I.e. reasons why this would not be a good step forwards toward a good agreement)
(This poll breaks the rules of the current proposal, most importantly because it takes less than 1 week, but I think that’s appropriate.)
I think the problem is that the implementation and the consenting are just mixed together, making it harder to follow the initial proposal. I do think it was mostly formatting that made it hard for @smichel17 to understand. I think a new proposal could incorporate the best ideas with less words, more to-the-point (don’t as much explanation within the proposal itself).
I liked the idea of having some formal mechanism for disqualifying objections. I’m not sure what’s best.
I liked it too 
. However, if the new proposal will be open enough for arbitrary consenting processes, the concerned person can simply follow the disqualification process as described in the old proposal.
I think the question is about choosing between the following two strategies:
It could be both. Precise process along with statement that alternative processes are okay too, as long as they meet certain criteria
I object myself, because it would not help with simplicity/shortness at all:
Instead, I will try to:
I changed the proposal significantly, hopefully this resolves @smichel17’s objection.
All forum users reading this: You’re encouraged to read the proposal thoroughly and then participate below. If you don’t participate, you implicitly give consent – in that case, please do give your consent explicitly though.
Proposal: My first post in this topic, Process for consent decisions on the forum (edited 14 times)
Proposed review date: In two months, i.e. 2020-03-23.
0 voters
@alignwaivers Pinging you to pay special attention to the secretary bit (I think you are the secretary currently).
Not even a concern:
Tiny typo, should be “member”
Concern:
We could put such polls in the non-public Team category and then nobody else would even see it.
What exactly is the concern that would motivate this amendment? I could imagine the concern is any of these:
Maybe a better way to integrate the concern would be to remove the “other objections are confronted and ignored”, because a) this won’t happen often anyways, b) it is obvious that such objections would be ignored. Maybe “confronted” is a too strong word?
I just wasn’t sure there’s any technical way otherwise to limit voting to a particular group. It seems the easier to just show the poll to that group rather than show it to everyone but tell most people not to vote. If there were a way to restrict the voting without hiding the poll, that seems fine enough.
Concern is what to do if someone else votes or how to express the sentiment that they shouldn’t or how to pick out the team votes from a mixed vote etc.
I do agree with these points. I’d like that stuff out of the proposal, whether or not we keep the team-poll public.
I think it would be best to do a second consent decision afterwards, with a proposal to amend the agreement. This way, we could avoid further delay for the currently running consent decision. (Maybe this is a good way to deal with concerns in general.)
Yay, we’ve made a decision! 
I marked the post with the poll as the “solution” of this topic.
Side-note: Discourse was just updated to now allow polls anywhere to be formally restricted to a group or trust-level. If we care to do that, it’s an option without putting the poll in a restricted topic or category.