Skip to Content

Wiki source code of Consent-Based Decision Making

Last modified by Robert Schaub on 2026/02/08 08:29
Show last authors
1 = Consent-Based Decision Making =
2
3 **From Sociocracy 3.0**: A decision-making method for system changes and policies.
4
5 == 1. What is Consent? ==
6
7 **Consent** = No principled objections to a proposal.
8 **This is NOT**:
9
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
17
18 == 2. Why Consent over Consensus? ==
19
20 **Consensus problems**:
21
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
35
36 == 3. What is a Principled Objection? ==
37
38 **Principled objection** = Shows that proposal would:
39
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?"
55
56 == 4. Consent Decision-Making Process ==
57
58 === Step 1: Proposal Presentation ===
59
60 **Proposer presents**:
61
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
67
68 === Step 2: Clarifying Questions ===
69
70 **Purpose**: Understand the proposal, not evaluate it yet
71 **Questions like**:
72
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
81
82 === Step 3: Reactions & Brief Discussion ===
83
84 **Each person shares**:
85
86 * Initial thoughts
87 * Potential concerns
88 * Suggested improvements
89 **Proposer listens**, doesn't defend yet.
90 **Time**: 10-20 minutes
91
92 === Step 4: Amend & Clarify ===
93
94 **Proposer**:
95
96 * Integrates feedback
97 * Clarifies misunderstandings
98 * May amend proposal
99 * Or explains why not
100 **Time**: 5-10 minutes
101
102 === Step 5: Consent Round ===
103
104 **Each person states**:
105
106 * "I consent" (no principled objections)
107 * "I have an objection: [specific concern]"
108 **Go around circle systematically**.
109 **Time**: 5 minutes
110
111 === Step 6: Integrate Objections ===
112
113 **If objections raised**:
114
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)
121
122 === Step 7: Celebrate & Document ===
123
124 **When consent achieved**:
125
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]]).
132
133 == 5. When to Use Consent ==
134
135 **Use consent for**:
136
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)
148
149 == 6. Roles in Consent Process ==
150
151 === Proposer ===
152
153 * Presents proposal
154 * Answers questions
155 * Integrates feedback
156 * Amends as needed
157
158 === Facilitator ===
159
160 * Guides process
161 * Keeps time
162 * Determines if objections are principled
163 * Ensures everyone heard
164 * Remains neutral
165
166 === Participants ===
167
168 * Listen actively
169 * Ask clarifying questions
170 * Share concerns honestly
171 * Support decision once made
172
173 == 7. Tips for Good Proposals ==
174
175 **Make proposals**:
176
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."
189
190 == 8. Tips for Good Objections ==
191
192 **Raise objections that**:
193
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?"
204
205 == 9. After the Decision ==
206
207 **Everyone who participated must**:
208
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.
215
216 == 10. Examples ==
217
218 === Example 1: Algorithm Change ===
219
220 **Proposal**: "Increase evidence extraction timeout from 5s to 10s to capture more evidence from slow sites."
221 **Process**:
222
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
229
230 === Example 2: Policy Change ===
231
232 **Proposal**: "Add new risk tier A+ for medical life-or-death claims requiring expert review."
233 **Process**:
234
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
242
243 === Example 3: Failed Consensus, Successful Consent ===
244
245 **Scenario**: Choosing between two database optimization approaches
246 **Consensus attempt**:
247
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
255
256 == 11. Common Pitfalls ==
257
258 **Pitfall 1**: "Silent consent"
259
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
271
272 == 12. Integration with FactHarbor ==
273
274 **Applied to**:
275
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**:
281 * [[Governance>>Archive.FactHarbor 2026\.02\.08.Organisation.Governance.WebHome]] - Overall governance structure
282 * [[Decision Processes>>FactHarbor.Organisation.Decision-Processes]] - Types of decisions
283 * [[Contributor Processes>>FactHarbor.Organisation.Contributor-Processes]] - How to propose changes