Reviewing the process for consent decisions

Clearing the Path
41

Just throwing a thought here, for future team growth. Do we want to change 2 people to 20%?

1 Appreciation
42

I’m now finally getting into the details more. It’s great that we have the starting points. I think the whole thing can be improved by editing and restructuring. As I’m doing that work, I’m coming up with several new concerns:

  • We don’t have the driver-statement process explicit but that should be there as in https://patterns.sociocracy30.org/navigate-via-tension.html
  • Driver consent is basically similar but less celebratory than proposal consent?
  • The team-reference is kind of a stand-in for relevant-roles/domains. So, team makes sense for items affecting the whole team. But the main issue is engaging whatever roles apply (depending on the particular case).
  • I’m adding an initial section about identifying tensions (and adapting that with some Conscious Leadership ideas)

As of this post, I haven’t gotten to reviewing the concern and objection processes.

I hope soon to share an overhauled proposed update. It’s a lot all at once, but I can’t really express it until I make all the pieces fit together.

43

I have really reviewed and overhauled the whole document now. Way too many changes to be just a simple update, this is essentially a v2. Difficult to summarize even, but:

  • incorporated the S3 tension, driver, proposal ideas as distinct
  • changed wordings to be more concise or just improved language
  • changed orders of sections in the document
  • somewhat minor changes to actual workflow details
  • noted some TODOs (didn’t keep the TODO summary at the bottom though)

The overall concepts are the same. I would like to suggest this update as the starting point for a v2 (I suggest dropping other drafts).

Because of the level of rewrite, I’m going to post it as a new topic.

44

Thanks, this one was getting a bit hard for me to follow.

1 Appreciation
45

In my v2 overhaul, I made the suggestion that the edit be made in the original wiki location but that a quote of the changed lines be put in a new reply that includes a consent-decision on just those changes.

Yeah, topics with 40+ replies get pretty heavy. I really think we should move on to the new one (again, link: WIP: Proposed Consent-decision process v2 - #3 by photm ), but we should read it carefully to check if it addresses concerns.

1 Appreciation
46

Seeing as

  1. People have agreed this thread has gotten unwieldy
  2. Conversation here has died out
  3. There is a clear successor thread for continued conversation on the topic

…I’m surprised we don’t mark this thread as “closed”. Is that something that we don’t do? It certainly helps organizationally (for me at least) so I’d quickly be able to read from the title that the conversation has moved on (and perhaps identify the latest non-closed thread) without having to read all the way to the bottom.

3 Appreciations
47

We dropped the process for using the forum this way. See Proposal: drop burdensome forum-based consent process

I agree that this should be closed.

1 Appreciation