Wiki source code of Consent-Based Decision Making
Last modified by Robert Schaub on 2026/02/08 08:29
Hide last authors
| author | version | line-number | content |
|---|---|---|---|
 |
1.1 | 1 | = Consent-Based Decision Making = |
| |
1.2 | 2 | |
| |
1.1 | 3 | **From Sociocracy 3.0**: A decision-making method for system changes and policies. |
| |
1.2 | 4 | |
| |
1.1 | 5 | == 1. What is Consent? == |
| |
1.2 | 6 | |
| |
1.1 | 7 | **Consent** = No principled objections to a proposal. |
| 8 | **This is NOT**: | ||
| |
1.2 | 9 | |
| |
1.1 | 10 | * ❌ Consensus (everyone must agree) |
| 11 | * ❌ Majority voting (51% wins) | ||
| 12 | * ❌ Unanimity (everyone must enthusiastically support) | ||
| 13 | **This IS**: | ||
| 14 | * ✅ "I can live with this and support it" | ||
| 15 | * ✅ "Good enough for now, safe enough to try" | ||
| 16 | * ✅ Respects concerns without requiring full agreement | ||
| |
1.2 | 17 | |
| |
1.1 | 18 | == 2. Why Consent over Consensus? == |
| |
1.2 | 19 | |
| |
1.1 | 20 | **Consensus problems**: |
| |
1.2 | 21 | |
| |
1.1 | 22 | * Takes too long |
| 23 | * One person can block everything | ||
| 24 | * Encourages compromise that satisfies no one | ||
| 25 | * Discourages bold proposals | ||
| 26 | **Consent advantages**: | ||
| 27 | * ✅ Faster decisions | ||
| 28 | * ✅ Respects principled objections | ||
| 29 | * ✅ Encourages experimentation | ||
| 30 | * ✅ "Good enough for now" mindset | ||
| 31 | * ✅ Can evolve decisions over time | ||
| 32 | **Example**: | ||
| 33 | * Consensus: "Everyone must love this algorithm change" → Takes weeks, diluted solution | ||
| 34 | * Consent: "Can everyone support trying this?" → Decision in days, learn from results | ||
| |
1.2 | 35 | |
| |
1.1 | 36 | == 3. What is a Principled Objection? == |
| |
1.2 | 37 | |
| |
1.1 | 38 | **Principled objection** = Shows that proposal would: |
| |
1.2 | 39 | |
| |
1.1 | 40 | * Harm the organization |
| 41 | * Violate core principles | ||
| 42 | * Create unacceptable risk | ||
| 43 | * Block achieving objectives | ||
| 44 | **Valid objections**: | ||
| 45 | * ✅ "This would violate our transparency principle" | ||
| 46 | * ✅ "This creates security vulnerability" | ||
| 47 | * ✅ "Our metrics show this will worsen performance" | ||
| 48 | * ✅ "This conflicts with existing policy X" | ||
| 49 | **Invalid objections** (preferences, not principles): | ||
| 50 | * ❌ "I don't like this approach" | ||
| 51 | * ❌ "I would do it differently" | ||
| 52 | * ❌ "This is not perfect" | ||
| 53 | * ❌ "I'm uncomfortable with change" | ||
| 54 | **Key question**: "Does this make things worse, or just not as good as your preferred solution?" | ||
| |
1.2 | 55 | |
| |
1.1 | 56 | == 4. Consent Decision-Making Process == |
| |
1.2 | 57 | |
| |
1.1 | 58 | === Step 1: Proposal Presentation === |
| |
1.2 | 59 | |
| |
1.1 | 60 | **Proposer presents**: |
| |
1.2 | 61 | |
| |
1.1 | 62 | * What problem are we solving? |
| 63 | * What is the proposal? | ||
| 64 | * Why this approach? | ||
| 65 | * What are the trade-offs? | ||
| 66 | **Time**: 5-10 minutes | ||
| |
1.2 | 67 | |
| |
1.1 | 68 | === Step 2: Clarifying Questions === |
| |
1.2 | 69 | |
| |
1.1 | 70 | **Purpose**: Understand the proposal, not evaluate it yet |
| 71 | **Questions like**: | ||
| |
1.2 | 72 | |
| |
1.1 | 73 | * "How does this affect X?" |
| 74 | * "What happens if Y?" | ||
| 75 | * "Can you explain Z?" | ||
| 76 | **NOT yet**: | ||
| 77 | * Concerns | ||
| 78 | * Suggestions | ||
| 79 | * Opinions | ||
| 80 | **Time**: 5-15 minutes | ||
| |
1.2 | 81 | |
| |
1.1 | 82 | === Step 3: Reactions & Brief Discussion === |
| |
1.2 | 83 | |
| |
1.1 | 84 | **Each person shares**: |
| |
1.2 | 85 | |
| |
1.1 | 86 | * Initial thoughts |
| 87 | * Potential concerns | ||
| 88 | * Suggested improvements | ||
| 89 | **Proposer listens**, doesn't defend yet. | ||
| 90 | **Time**: 10-20 minutes | ||
| |
1.2 | 91 | |
| |
1.1 | 92 | === Step 4: Amend & Clarify === |
| |
1.2 | 93 | |
| |
1.1 | 94 | **Proposer**: |
| |
1.2 | 95 | |
| |
1.1 | 96 | * Integrates feedback |
| 97 | * Clarifies misunderstandings | ||
| 98 | * May amend proposal | ||
| 99 | * Or explains why not | ||
| 100 | **Time**: 5-10 minutes | ||
| |
1.2 | 101 | |
| |
1.1 | 102 | === Step 5: Consent Round === |
| |
1.2 | 103 | |
| |
1.1 | 104 | **Each person states**: |
| |
1.2 | 105 | |
| |
1.1 | 106 | * "I consent" (no principled objections) |
| 107 | * "I have an objection: [specific concern]" | ||
| 108 | **Go around circle systematically**. | ||
| 109 | **Time**: 5 minutes | ||
| |
1.2 | 110 | |
| |
1.1 | 111 | === Step 6: Integrate Objections === |
| |
1.2 | 112 | |
| |
1.1 | 113 | **If objections raised**: |
| |
1.2 | 114 | |
| |
1.1 | 115 | * Discuss each objection |
| 116 | * Is it principled? (facilitator decides if unclear) | ||
| 117 | * How can we integrate it? | ||
| 118 | * Amend proposal | ||
| 119 | **Then repeat consent round**. | ||
| 120 | **Time**: Variable (10-30 minutes per objection) | ||
| |
1.2 | 121 | |
| |
1.1 | 122 | === Step 7: Celebrate & Document === |
| |
1.2 | 123 | |
| |
1.1 | 124 | **When consent achieved**: |
| |
1.2 | 125 | |
| |
1.1 | 126 | * ✅ Decision documented |
| 127 | * ✅ Next steps assigned | ||
| 128 | * ✅ Timeline set | ||
| 129 | * ✅ Success metrics defined | ||
| 130 | * ✅ Review date scheduled | ||
| 131 | **Decision record created** (see [[Decision Processes>>FactHarbor.Organisation.Decision-Processes]]). | ||
| |
1.2 | 132 | |
| |
1.1 | 133 | == 5. When to Use Consent == |
| |
1.2 | 134 | |
| |
1.1 | 135 | **Use consent for**: |
| |
1.2 | 136 | |
| |
1.1 | 137 | * ✅ Algorithm changes |
| 138 | * ✅ Policy updates | ||
| 139 | * ✅ Infrastructure investments | ||
| 140 | * ✅ Process changes | ||
| 141 | * ✅ Role assignments | ||
| 142 | * ✅ Community guidelines | ||
| 143 | **Don't use consent for**: | ||
| 144 | * ❌ Strategic decisions → Use voting (Governing Team or General Assembly) | ||
| 145 | * ❌ Emergency decisions → Use autonomous authority | ||
| 146 | * ❌ Routine operations → Use autonomous authority within domain | ||
| 147 | * ❌ Content decisions → AKEL decides (not humans at all) | ||
| |
1.2 | 148 | |
| |
1.1 | 149 | == 6. Roles in Consent Process == |
| |
1.2 | 150 | |
| |
1.1 | 151 | === Proposer === |
| |
1.2 | 152 | |
| |
1.1 | 153 | * Presents proposal |
| 154 | * Answers questions | ||
| 155 | * Integrates feedback | ||
| 156 | * Amends as needed | ||
| |
1.2 | 157 | |
| |
1.1 | 158 | === Facilitator === |
| |
1.2 | 159 | |
| |
1.1 | 160 | * Guides process |
| 161 | * Keeps time | ||
| 162 | * Determines if objections are principled | ||
| 163 | * Ensures everyone heard | ||
| 164 | * Remains neutral | ||
| |
1.2 | 165 | |
| |
1.1 | 166 | === Participants === |
| |
1.2 | 167 | |
| |
1.1 | 168 | * Listen actively |
| 169 | * Ask clarifying questions | ||
| 170 | * Share concerns honestly | ||
| 171 | * Support decision once made | ||
| |
1.2 | 172 | |
| |
1.1 | 173 | == 7. Tips for Good Proposals == |
| |
1.2 | 174 | |
| |
1.1 | 175 | **Make proposals**: |
| |
1.2 | 176 | |
| |
1.1 | 177 | * ✅ Specific and actionable |
| 178 | * ✅ Time-bound (try for 3 months, then review) | ||
| 179 | * ✅ Measurable (how do we know if it works?) | ||
| 180 | * ✅ Reversible if possible | ||
| 181 | * ✅ Good enough for now, safe enough to try | ||
| 182 | **Avoid**: | ||
| 183 | * ❌ Vague aspirations | ||
| 184 | * ❌ Permanent, unchangeable decisions | ||
| 185 | * ❌ Trying to be perfect | ||
| 186 | * ❌ Solving every possible edge case | ||
| 187 | **Example of good proposal**: | ||
| 188 | "Let's adjust the source scoring algorithm to weight peer-review 20% higher for 3 months and monitor the quality metrics. If evidence completeness doesn't improve by >10%, we'll revert." | ||
| |
1.2 | 189 | |
| |
1.1 | 190 | == 8. Tips for Good Objections == |
| |
1.2 | 191 | |
| |
1.1 | 192 | **Raise objections that**: |
| |
1.2 | 193 | |
| |
1.1 | 194 | * ✅ Are specific: "This will cause X problem" |
| 195 | * ✅ Are principled: "This violates Y principle" | ||
| 196 | * ✅ Suggest alternatives: "What if we instead..." | ||
| 197 | * ✅ Are about harm, not perfection | ||
| 198 | **Avoid objections that are**: | ||
| 199 | * ❌ Personal preferences | ||
| 200 | * ❌ Fear of change | ||
| 201 | * ❌ Desire for perfect solution | ||
| 202 | * ❌ "Not invented here" syndrome | ||
| 203 | **Ask yourself**: "Will this harm the organization, or just not be my preferred approach?" | ||
| |
1.2 | 204 | |
| |
1.1 | 205 | == 9. After the Decision == |
| |
1.2 | 206 | |
| |
1.1 | 207 | **Everyone who participated must**: |
| |
1.2 | 208 | |
| |
1.1 | 209 | * ✅ Support the decision publicly |
| 210 | * ✅ Give it a genuine try | ||
| 211 | * ✅ Provide constructive feedback | ||
| 212 | * ✅ Not undermine the decision | ||
| 213 | **Can you still disagree?**: Yes, internally. But externally, support it. | ||
| 214 | **Can you revisit?**: Yes, at the scheduled review date, or if metrics show problems. | ||
| |
1.2 | 215 | |
| |
1.1 | 216 | == 10. Examples == |
| |
1.2 | 217 | |
| |
1.1 | 218 | === Example 1: Algorithm Change === |
| |
1.2 | 219 | |
| |
1.1 | 220 | **Proposal**: "Increase evidence extraction timeout from 5s to 10s to capture more evidence from slow sites." |
| 221 | **Process**: | ||
| |
1.2 | 222 | |
| |
1.1 | 223 | 1. Presentation: Explained problem (missing evidence), solution, trade-off (slower processing) |
| 224 | 2. Questions: "How many claims affected?" "What's CPU impact?" | ||
| 225 | 3. Reactions: Concern about processing time, suggestion to A/B test first | ||
| 226 | 4. Amended: Added A/B test requirement, success metric | ||
| 227 | 5. Consent round: All consent | ||
| 228 | 6. Result: Approved with A/B test requirement | ||
| |
1.2 | 229 | |
| |
1.1 | 230 | === Example 2: Policy Change === |
| |
1.2 | 231 | |
| |
1.1 | 232 | **Proposal**: "Add new risk tier A+ for medical life-or-death claims requiring expert review." |
| 233 | **Process**: | ||
| |
1.2 | 234 | |
| |
1.1 | 235 | 1. Presentation: Explained need, proposed criteria |
| 236 | 2. Questions: "Who are experts?" "How many claims affected?" | ||
| 237 | 3. Reactions: Objection - "This creates human approval gate, violates automation principle" | ||
| 238 | 4. Discussion: Valid principled objection | ||
| 239 | 5. Amended: "A+ tier requires AKEL to be more conservative (higher evidence bar), not human approval" | ||
| 240 | 6. Consent round: All consent | ||
| 241 | 7. Result: Approved with automation preserved | ||
| |
1.2 | 242 | |
| |
1.1 | 243 | === Example 3: Failed Consensus, Successful Consent === |
| |
1.2 | 244 | |
| |
1.1 | 245 | **Scenario**: Choosing between two database optimization approaches |
| 246 | **Consensus attempt**: | ||
| |
1.2 | 247 | |
| |
1.1 | 248 | * Team split 50/50 |
| 249 | * Argued for weeks | ||
| 250 | * No decision | ||
| 251 | **Consent approach**: | ||
| 252 | * Proposer: "Let's try approach A for 2 months, monitor query times. If not 20% faster, we try B." | ||
| 253 | * Consent round: Team B supporters say "I prefer B, but can support trying A first with clear metrics." | ||
| 254 | * Result: Decision in one meeting | ||
| |
1.2 | 255 | |
| |
1.1 | 256 | == 11. Common Pitfalls == |
| |
1.2 | 257 | |
| |
1.1 | 258 | **Pitfall 1**: "Silent consent" |
| |
1.2 | 259 | |
| |
1.1 | 260 | * Problem: People consent but don't actually support |
| 261 | * Solution: Facilitator explicitly asks each person | ||
| 262 | **Pitfall 2**: "Too perfect" | ||
| 263 | * Problem: Trying to address every edge case before deciding | ||
| 264 | * Solution: "Good enough for now, safe enough to try" | ||
| 265 | **Pitfall 3**: "Preference as objection" | ||
| 266 | * Problem: Personal preferences disguised as principled objections | ||
| 267 | * Solution: Facilitator asks "How does this harm the organization?" | ||
| 268 | **Pitfall 4**: "Never revisiting" | ||
| 269 | * Problem: Treat consent decisions as permanent | ||
| 270 | * Solution: Always include review date in decision | ||
| |
1.2 | 271 | |
| |
1.1 | 272 | == 12. Integration with FactHarbor == |
| |
1.2 | 273 | |
| |
1.1 | 274 | **Applied to**: |
| |
1.2 | 275 | |
| |
1.1 | 276 | * Technical Coordinator decisions (within domain) → Autonomous |
| 277 | * Cross-domain technical decisions → Consent with affected coordinators | ||
| 278 | * Policy changes → Consent with Governing Team | ||
| 279 | * Major strategic changes → Voting (General Assembly) | ||
| 280 | **See also**: | ||
| |
1.2 | 281 | * [[Governance>>Archive.FactHarbor 2026\.02\.08.Organisation.Governance.WebHome]] - Overall governance structure |
| |
1.1 | 282 | * [[Decision Processes>>FactHarbor.Organisation.Decision-Processes]] - Types of decisions |
| 283 | * [[Contributor Processes>>FactHarbor.Organisation.Contributor-Processes]] - How to propose changes |