Just watched the video, not sure it all sunk in, but think its somewhat like what I've been imagining may work well for some of our decision making.

The coordination work group thread actually had much of what I'm thinking would be good. Guess maybe the conversation inappropriately died when @Matt Noyes redrafted the proposal (think linking to docs, rather than having text in Loomio, risks loosing folks attention - particularly Google Docs or other stuff hosted on similar distrusted megacorps, was the case for me here).

I recently saved a link to this page which I thought may be useful for us. Proposal Two describes another process with some similar features. Think if I had to pick between the two (which we dont) I'd choose integrative consent method, over this, in large part because the only wider consultation/discussion before voting happens via a video call meeting.

Up to now, I have been playing two roles: proposer and facilitator. It seems it is better for someone other than the proposer to facilitate -- any takers?

I wonder if we are doing this correctly? I've probably missed something, but on my reading of the instructions, you need a facilitator to have the "questions and comments" round. The facilitator stops this stage being an open discussion by asking specific people to contribute. (Which sounds like a highly political and powerful role).

In an asynchronous process, I think the equivalent of a round would be something like "no one comments twice until all have had the chance to comment once" but, interestingly, we don't know who is in the discussion (unlike a physical round, where people are all in the same space/time). So, I wonder which is better - to allow for more free exchange at this stage or to do something like no one should comment twice until all have commented once? Or maybe to use this process with a specified group of participants, like a working group? Another question is should there be "cross talk" at this point, i.e. responses to comments?

This sounds to me like what I have seen called "Integrative Decision Making" (https://prototyping.work/prototype/integrative-decision-making-idm/), and coincidentally we use at my current employer (a small EdTech startup). Which is to say that I have some personal experience with this process, but in a very different environment (a much smaller group, with much clearer hierarchy and goals).

What works very poorly with IDM in my current work environment is that pretty much all proposals get "approved" (STTed), but typically with very low commitment from everyone except the original proposer. This then leads to unsuccessful implementation (a lot of these proposals involve group process or behavior change). I'm sure whatever failure modes we run into with IDM in social.coop will be different, so I do not consider my personal data point on IDM a reason to not try it here.

In my experience, formal IDM is a lot more heavyweight, in terms of burden on participants and facilitators, than what I typically see on social.coop's Loomio discussions. So I would not want to make IDM a requirement for all proposals, at least not until we have tried it out a couple of times with some success.

Which is all to say, that I would give this proposal a "Safe To Try", as long as it is not a requirement that formal IDM gets used for all proposals (at least not for now), and as long as we have some process or ritual to reflect at a later date on how this is or is not working for us. 👍

This is all fascinating!

I think the positive response from @Matt Noyes , @Mica Fisher , @Matthew Cropp and myself to this process is that the way that we've been making proposals thus far in the CWG can sometimes feel like the CWG Ops Team is having all of the discussion and then thrusting a proposal at the working group. I think this happens because we haven't really been using the function of a non-vote discussion phase for proposals effectively. As @Mica Fisher alluded to in her comment, I think we all felt a little uncomfortable at how unclear the process by which we discussed and integrated comments from the previous proposal for the coordination committee. It would have felt more inclusive had we had a discussion before crafting the proposal rather than having a vote right away.

All this to say, that I personally love the idea of the CWG Ops Team utilizing this process to give it a try and to keep it non-mandatory. I also like the idea of suggesting that social.coop use some of the ideas as aspirational ways of interacting when making and contributing to proposals/decision making. I agree that it might be hard to 'implement' or make 'mandatory' mostly because of the on-boarding process.

Agreed with @mike_hales that it might be worth trialling this in individual working groups first, though the process does seem reasonable to adopt more broadly in cases where we're already using Loomio anyway. I think as long as the proposer is familiar with the process (and there are some other people who can help guide the proposal through the process) this should work.

I'm actually in the process of introducing a similar process at work - the Silent Meeting Manifesto - for the same reason outlined in the Loomio doc (esp the point about loud voices silencing other participants).

One objection a team mate has is that moving the emphasis to written communication disadvantages those who are dyslexic - probably more of a concern in silent meetings, which happens synchronously, than in the suggested way to run Integrative Consent async where time constraint is less of an issue, but maybe something we need to keep an eye on

A possible solution to the dyslexia issue is to have people upload a short video or audio clip of their contributions. I would not mind reading aloud my inputs if someone needs that. I do prefer to have the asynchronous time to compose my thoughts in writing, as I am a bit weak at synchronous verbal communications. It does seem possible to attach video and audio files to these messages.

I was hoping to have a possiblity to integrate a conset process in loomio for other projects. It's worth trying it out for social.coop.

I love this meta-decision process. I feel that a mix of governance modes are the best approach. I think this integrative consent process is a great way to make many decisions collectively. Although I wonder what the process would be for objecting to a valid objection. What happens when there is a proposal where the benefits outweigh the valid risks and harms? Or if it results in some "harm" (maybe some loss of freedom) to some people but much greater benefits for the whole (maybe greater freedoms for most people). We might call this "The Greater Benefits Scenario" (GBS). So in some cases, it would not be possible to reach unobjectionable total consensus, and therefore great proposals and opportunities could be mired in debates and disagreements. Would there be a process for overruling an objection or a block? I think in this scenario, we might need a sort of liquid democracy process, where everyone chooses who will represent them on the governing board. In this rare GBS scenario, a two-thirds majority would be required to overrule the objection, and members of the board have different delegations powers corresponding to who has given their delegation power to them. Then in the case of a 2/3 majority, those who have delegated their powers to the delegates would have some time to confirm the overruling and then the ruling is initiated. We could also have a sort of Board of Supreme Court Justices to determine if the decision was just or not regardless of a majority ruling. These are just some rough ideas and thought experiments and I am open to hearing thoughts, concerns, and objections to this. I am not sure of the reasoning for the values for complete consensus so am open to hearing that as well. - Jon Bean.

Okay, I think at this point I am going to close this round and re-draft the proposal, taking into account the various questions, suggestions, and doubts raised. I will post it as a new version of the proposal and ask for objections. Thank you for the substantive responses!

"STEP 3: Amendment

"Step three, amend, is where the proposer makes changes at their discretion to their proposal based on the input they received in step two. The proposer doesn’t have to amend anything or respond to everything shared in step two. Their job is to change what they feel would be best on behalf of the whole team, not just their, or anyone else’s, personal preferences. Once we have an amended proposal, then we move into step four, integrate."

PROCESS: "During this phase, all team members are invited to present any objections they have, with objections being defined as what “might cause harm to the team or organization”.

In our use of Integrative Consent, should we decide to use it, we might want to alter the criteria, but for now let's use theirs:

I am willing to facilitate, but I am going to be traveling starting tomorrow (Feb 26th) and until March 11th, with very limited online availability, so I won't be able to contribute during that time. If we want to move the process forward during that time, someone else would need to facilitate.

(FWIW, in the IDM process as practiced at my current work, the proposer is also the person that integrates feedback and comes up with an updated proposal. I don't know how usual or advisable that is, this is my only experience with IDM.)

Hi Ana, thanks for being willing to facilitate! I think if we wait until you are back it might be too long? About the integration and updated proposal, I am happy to do that. I think the facilitator's job is just to help us stick to the process and to ask people if their objections are valid, is that right?

Yep, the role would be mainly to keep the process on track. I agree that waiting for two weeks is too long -- maybe someone else can facilitate, or you can do that yourself if needed @Matt Noyes .

Maybe in this case it is okay because this is a trial proposal so I am not as invested in the outcome and more interested in learning from the process. But better if someone else wants to try out facilitating...

Meta: "who expects whom to participate?" This is a key issue -- seems like this process assumes something like a team or working group trying to organize its work. My proposal left the "who" undefined... So that should be added to the process at a question to consider at the first step: "Who is expected to participate in this process? Why?"

Thanks @Mica Fisher !!!

Meta: "Should I be voting? Should I be objecting? Should I be commenting? It's all a bit overwhelming." -- The idea of this Step is that people should object and comment. So, maybe instead of "Consent, Abstain, Objection" I should have just asked for Objections?

Yes this seems like one of the trickier parts. In the video example by Loomio and Roundsky they made the title of the proposal Objections: Title (version 2) BUT they used the same consent, abstain, objection voting feature. I think repeating that framework is what is most useful. So Step 4 integration is NOT for commenting on the original proposal (i.e. trying to influence the proposal, of course you can comment on why you abstained or consent). Step for is for consenting, abstaining, or objecting. And objecting fits into the more narrow framework of "this might cause harm to the org." Maybe just making the title "Consent, Abstain or Object: Social.Coop should use an integrative consent process, Version 2" will make that clearer?

Changed the title, thanks!

I did not have enough space to expand my objection to make it valid enough, I will continue here. Maybe this is not an objection but more of a suggestion, I am not sure.
I would like to do more research and more time to make an informed decision, although I am not in the CWG and maybe I should not object to them trying it. Before committing to 6 months of practicing this, we should do a thorough analysis and compare all of the similar options for decision making that fits with our needs and structures. I like comparison shopping and I would like to get more input from experienced individuals and organizations that have a similar mission and operating procedures. My amendment to the proposal is to make a call to organize a more or less formal panel or committee with the goal of making sure we are safe to try this, which we are now doing here a bit. I would like a digest of the available information about all the decision making processes. Maybe try this process a few more times before committing to it for 6 months.

I believe @Matt Noyes's proposal is important and that we need to carefully and intentionally consider it more. It seems to me this process is a healthy policy development and implementation strategy. I think it is better than no strategy. I should say that I am still relatively new as an active member and I don't have a lot of experience with decision making in a user-owned platform cooperative, but I would like to learn more and do more of this.

Sounds to me like this is just a personal preference so not really a valid objection, especially given you're not (yet) in in the group concerned. 😃

Surely this proposal is "safe enough to try', no?

Or put another way, what are the risks of trying this out for 6-months?

To be clear, I'd love to see a summary of such alternative options too, but I don't think waiting for that to exist is a prerequisite.

Personally I think no real danger to trying something out for 6-months 😃

@Josef Davies-Coates, Right, it is not really an objection. I guess I can not say "not safe to try" and I also can not say "safe to try", as I don't know enough to be sure, so it is "maybe safe to try" I guess abstain is the only option for me right now.

One of the potential risks /harm I was thinking about is related to what @mike_hales was saying on the thread for this on social.coop. We discovered that using this process on loomio exclusively was not the most ideal, that we need to maintain the informal forms of discussion and not just debate on one thread on loomio about a proposal, as this could strain our bonds and our solidarity. I think @Ana Ulin's experience with IDM is insightful and precautionary. See the thread for more information.

I think it is still safe to practice and try it out a few more times to learn more and I abstain from consenting or objecting to the CWG doing it since I am not on it yet.

I think this kind of exchange is what it's all about. There are a lot of important questions about whether and how to use this approach. Experimenting with it in a working group - if the members of that working group choose to do so -- might give us a better sense of the (dis)advantages of using it.

I abstain from consenting or objecting to the CWG doing it since I am not on it yet.

@Jonathan Bean As it may not be completely clear to everyone the CWG is open for any Social Coop member to join & participate within as they see fit. It operates via a Loomio sub grouo.

Meta: Just realized I set up the poll so that all votes are anonymous -- that seems unhelpful! I meant to give people the option. Lesson learned.

Meta: the time for taking objections is almost up. The next thing to do is integration.

Integration (objections to completion)

Once all objections have been surfaced then we can complete integration. This includes understanding the concerns and checking that each objection meets the validation criteria. Your facilitator should pick one objection at a time and integrate it via open discussion to create an amended version of the proposal. It’s important that the proposal in its changed form still resolves the proposer’s tension. In other words, it would be pointless to change the proposal so that it no longer addresses the need that put it on the table in the first place, though how that need gets met may be different than the way the proposer initially conceived. This process is repeated for all valid objections, remembering that new objections may be raised as we change the proposal. When there are no further objections, the proposal has passed.

Here are the objections I see. @Mica Fisher do you want to try testing these for validity?

1. "For myself, this kind of formal process is over-elaborate and of limited appeal."

2. "some recognition of the concentric circles of organizational closeness a la the DisCO ideas would be useful to set expectations for these more-formal processes. Like, who expects whom to participate?"

3. "Might also be good to opt-in for notifications of votes, if possible, so when the proposal notification arrives in my email reader I could opt-in for the rest of the chatter and vote.."

4. "Before committing to 6 months of practicing this, we should do a thorough analysis and compare all of the similar options for decision making that fits with our needs and structures. I like comparison shopping and I would like to get more input from experienced individuals and organizations that have a similar mission and operating procedures. My amendment to the proposal is to make a call to organize a more or less formal panel or committee with the goal of making sure we are safe to try this, which we are now doing here a bit. I would like a digest of the available information about all the decision making processes. Maybe try this process a few more times before committing to it for 6 months....
   "One of the potential risks /harm I was thinking about is related to what @mike_hales was saying on the thread for this on social.coop. We discovered that using this process on loomio exclusively was not the most ideal, that we need to maintain the informal forms of discussion and not just debate on one thread on loomio about a proposal, as this could strain our bonds and our solidarity. I think @Ana Ulin's experience with IDM is insightful and precautionary. See the thread for more information."

My thoughts on these:

1. I don't see this as a valid objection, but a personal preference

2. I see this as slightly outside the scope of the proposal, but something to keep in mind as we practice integrative consent. What do you think?

3. Similar to #2

4. Also something that is helpful to be reviewed, but doesn't stand in the way of the proposal as @Jonathan Bean seemed to land on abstaining.
   
   Overall, I don't see any amendments to the proposal, but rather nuances to keep in mind and discuss with the CWG if the proposal passes.

I agree - it seems important to specify who is expected to participate in the integrative consent process and why. It seems to be designed to be used by defined teams or working groups, or small organizations. I will rewrite the proposal and submit v3 for another round of objections. If there are not any, we can consider it accepted.

Just wanted to say thanks for this thread @Matt Noyes! I learned a lot.

@Matt Noyes I have taken a handful of in person and online workshops with RoundSky ... they are HQd in Vermont. I have experience with their Integrative Consent process. I think I can facilitate it. I have always wanted to do their facilitator training, but they changed their programming right when I was ready to commit to the now older course content... that might have been over 5 years ago now! ... I did a mini lesson on convergent facilitation with NVC instructor Miki Kashton, so I am not trained in it either! I’m finishing a course on facilitation of Restorative Justice Circles right now. I enjoy the feeling of multi-partiality. I believe I can “play” all sides. (I have a story of playing all sides in the ortho office with my teen in the seat.)

@CaitlinWaddick Might you have a link or two to offer, on facilitation of Restorative Justice Circles?