Skip to Content

Wiki source code of Consent-Based Decision Making

Last modified by Robert Schaub on 2025/12/18 12:03
Show last authors
1 = Consent-Based Decision Making =
2 **From Sociocracy 3.0**: A decision-making method for system changes and policies.
3 == 1. What is Consent? ==
4 **Consent** = No principled objections to a proposal.
5 **This is NOT**:
6 * ❌ Consensus (everyone must agree)
7 * ❌ Majority voting (51% wins)
8 * ❌ Unanimity (everyone must enthusiastically support)
9 **This IS**:
10 * ✅ "I can live with this and support it"
11 * ✅ "Good enough for now, safe enough to try"
12 * ✅ Respects concerns without requiring full agreement
13 == 2. Why Consent over Consensus? ==
14 **Consensus problems**:
15 * Takes too long
16 * One person can block everything
17 * Encourages compromise that satisfies no one
18 * Discourages bold proposals
19 **Consent advantages**:
20 * ✅ Faster decisions
21 * ✅ Respects principled objections
22 * ✅ Encourages experimentation
23 * ✅ "Good enough for now" mindset
24 * ✅ Can evolve decisions over time
25 **Example**:
26 * Consensus: "Everyone must love this algorithm change" → Takes weeks, diluted solution
27 * Consent: "Can everyone support trying this?" → Decision in days, learn from results
28 == 3. What is a Principled Objection? ==
29 **Principled objection** = Shows that proposal would:
30 * Harm the organization
31 * Violate core principles
32 * Create unacceptable risk
33 * Block achieving objectives
34 **Valid objections**:
35 * ✅ "This would violate our transparency principle"
36 * ✅ "This creates security vulnerability"
37 * ✅ "Our metrics show this will worsen performance"
38 * ✅ "This conflicts with existing policy X"
39 **Invalid objections** (preferences, not principles):
40 * ❌ "I don't like this approach"
41 * ❌ "I would do it differently"
42 * ❌ "This is not perfect"
43 * ❌ "I'm uncomfortable with change"
44 **Key question**: "Does this make things worse, or just not as good as your preferred solution?"
45 == 4. Consent Decision-Making Process ==
46 === Step 1: Proposal Presentation ===
47 **Proposer presents**:
48 * What problem are we solving?
49 * What is the proposal?
50 * Why this approach?
51 * What are the trade-offs?
52 **Time**: 5-10 minutes
53 === Step 2: Clarifying Questions ===
54 **Purpose**: Understand the proposal, not evaluate it yet
55 **Questions like**:
56 * "How does this affect X?"
57 * "What happens if Y?"
58 * "Can you explain Z?"
59 **NOT yet**:
60 * Concerns
61 * Suggestions
62 * Opinions
63 **Time**: 5-15 minutes
64 === Step 3: Reactions & Brief Discussion ===
65 **Each person shares**:
66 * Initial thoughts
67 * Potential concerns
68 * Suggested improvements
69 **Proposer listens**, doesn't defend yet.
70 **Time**: 10-20 minutes
71 === Step 4: Amend & Clarify ===
72 **Proposer**:
73 * Integrates feedback
74 * Clarifies misunderstandings
75 * May amend proposal
76 * Or explains why not
77 **Time**: 5-10 minutes
78 === Step 5: Consent Round ===
79 **Each person states**:
80 * "I consent" (no principled objections)
81 * "I have an objection: [specific concern]"
82 **Go around circle systematically**.
83 **Time**: 5 minutes
84 === Step 6: Integrate Objections ===
85 **If objections raised**:
86 * Discuss each objection
87 * Is it principled? (facilitator decides if unclear)
88 * How can we integrate it?
89 * Amend proposal
90 **Then repeat consent round**.
91 **Time**: Variable (10-30 minutes per objection)
92 === Step 7: Celebrate & Document ===
93 **When consent achieved**:
94 * ✅ Decision documented
95 * ✅ Next steps assigned
96 * ✅ Timeline set
97 * ✅ Success metrics defined
98 * ✅ Review date scheduled
99 **Decision record created** (see [[Decision Processes>>FactHarbor.Organisation.Decision-Processes]]).
100 == 5. When to Use Consent ==
101 **Use consent for**:
102 * ✅ Algorithm changes
103 * ✅ Policy updates
104 * ✅ Infrastructure investments
105 * ✅ Process changes
106 * ✅ Role assignments
107 * ✅ Community guidelines
108 **Don't use consent for**:
109 * ❌ Strategic decisions → Use voting (Governing Team or General Assembly)
110 * ❌ Emergency decisions → Use autonomous authority
111 * ❌ Routine operations → Use autonomous authority within domain
112 * ❌ Content decisions → AKEL decides (not humans at all)
113 == 6. Roles in Consent Process ==
114 === Proposer ===
115 * Presents proposal
116 * Answers questions
117 * Integrates feedback
118 * Amends as needed
119 === Facilitator ===
120 * Guides process
121 * Keeps time
122 * Determines if objections are principled
123 * Ensures everyone heard
124 * Remains neutral
125 === Participants ===
126 * Listen actively
127 * Ask clarifying questions
128 * Share concerns honestly
129 * Support decision once made
130 == 7. Tips for Good Proposals ==
131 **Make proposals**:
132 * ✅ Specific and actionable
133 * ✅ Time-bound (try for 3 months, then review)
134 * ✅ Measurable (how do we know if it works?)
135 * ✅ Reversible if possible
136 * ✅ Good enough for now, safe enough to try
137 **Avoid**:
138 * ❌ Vague aspirations
139 * ❌ Permanent, unchangeable decisions
140 * ❌ Trying to be perfect
141 * ❌ Solving every possible edge case
142 **Example of good proposal**:
143 "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."
144 == 8. Tips for Good Objections ==
145 **Raise objections that**:
146 * ✅ Are specific: "This will cause X problem"
147 * ✅ Are principled: "This violates Y principle"
148 * ✅ Suggest alternatives: "What if we instead..."
149 * ✅ Are about harm, not perfection
150 **Avoid objections that are**:
151 * ❌ Personal preferences
152 * ❌ Fear of change
153 * ❌ Desire for perfect solution
154 * ❌ "Not invented here" syndrome
155 **Ask yourself**: "Will this harm the organization, or just not be my preferred approach?"
156 == 9. After the Decision ==
157 **Everyone who participated must**:
158 * ✅ Support the decision publicly
159 * ✅ Give it a genuine try
160 * ✅ Provide constructive feedback
161 * ✅ Not undermine the decision
162 **Can you still disagree?**: Yes, internally. But externally, support it.
163 **Can you revisit?**: Yes, at the scheduled review date, or if metrics show problems.
164 == 10. Examples ==
165 === Example 1: Algorithm Change ===
166 **Proposal**: "Increase evidence extraction timeout from 5s to 10s to capture more evidence from slow sites."
167 **Process**:
168 1. Presentation: Explained problem (missing evidence), solution, trade-off (slower processing)
169 2. Questions: "How many claims affected?" "What's CPU impact?"
170 3. Reactions: Concern about processing time, suggestion to A/B test first
171 4. Amended: Added A/B test requirement, success metric
172 5. Consent round: All consent
173 6. Result: Approved with A/B test requirement
174 === Example 2: Policy Change ===
175 **Proposal**: "Add new risk tier A+ for medical life-or-death claims requiring expert review."
176 **Process**:
177 1. Presentation: Explained need, proposed criteria
178 2. Questions: "Who are experts?" "How many claims affected?"
179 3. Reactions: Objection - "This creates human approval gate, violates automation principle"
180 4. Discussion: Valid principled objection
181 5. Amended: "A+ tier requires AKEL to be more conservative (higher evidence bar), not human approval"
182 6. Consent round: All consent
183 7. Result: Approved with automation preserved
184 === Example 3: Failed Consensus, Successful Consent ===
185 **Scenario**: Choosing between two database optimization approaches
186 **Consensus attempt**:
187 * Team split 50/50
188 * Argued for weeks
189 * No decision
190 **Consent approach**:
191 * Proposer: "Let's try approach A for 2 months, monitor query times. If not 20% faster, we try B."
192 * Consent round: Team B supporters say "I prefer B, but can support trying A first with clear metrics."
193 * Result: Decision in one meeting
194 == 11. Common Pitfalls ==
195 **Pitfall 1**: "Silent consent"
196 * Problem: People consent but don't actually support
197 * Solution: Facilitator explicitly asks each person
198 **Pitfall 2**: "Too perfect"
199 * Problem: Trying to address every edge case before deciding
200 * Solution: "Good enough for now, safe enough to try"
201 **Pitfall 3**: "Preference as objection"
202 * Problem: Personal preferences disguised as principled objections
203 * Solution: Facilitator asks "How does this harm the organization?"
204 **Pitfall 4**: "Never revisiting"
205 * Problem: Treat consent decisions as permanent
206 * Solution: Always include review date in decision
207 == 12. Integration with FactHarbor ==
208 **Applied to**:
209 * Technical Coordinator decisions (within domain) → Autonomous
210 * Cross-domain technical decisions → Consent with affected coordinators
211 * Policy changes → Consent with Governing Team
212 * Major strategic changes → Voting (General Assembly)
213 **See also**:
214 * [[Governance>>FactHarbor.Organisation.Governance.WebHome]] - Overall governance structure
215 * [[Decision Processes>>FactHarbor.Organisation.Decision-Processes]] - Types of decisions
216 * [[Contributor Processes>>FactHarbor.Organisation.Contributor-Processes]] - How to propose changes