Interim Decision Making Process

To collectively create RAD housing, we will need to agree on when and how different types of decisions are made by whom. This will take time. There are a lot of resources on how to make better decisions together, so it may also be useful to experiment with several different processes to help identify the most appropriate approaches for our collective.

Adopting an interim process is intended to help us make initial decisions together while cultivating a shared context from which to co-create more appropriate agreements for each of the many types of decisions we hope to make together. The process outlined below is intended to be replaced by decision-making agreements once we have created them. To complicate this, it is important to note that we will need different processes for the various different types of decisions we will need to make together (because some decisions will me relevant to all participants in this emerging multi-property collective while others will only be relevant to those co-residents living collectively within specific houses).

As outlined below, initial decisions will be made in one of two ways: by forming consensus for ‘major’ decisions about how we form our collective, and by Crew establishing consent from Voyagers to make the specific types of ‘minor’ operational decisions needed to start implementing the RAD Housing goals for our collective. For both these types of decisions we will include time within our assemblies for discussing up-coming decisions and engaging with discussion in one of the digital tools for collective decision making called ‘Loomio’ - that is designed to support decentralised groups to make decisions transparently.

Before outlining the process, it is worth clarifying that our approach is drawing on a few key concepts that are used differently in other contexts. The following descriptions of these concepts provide context for our initial process as well as a pathway for us to begin exploring how to co-create our longer-term decision-making agreements.

Key Concepts

MAJOR DECISIONS: Major decisions are those that have high risk and/or permanent outcomes. Initially, our major decisions will be about how we function as a collective, including the principles informing our collective practices and how we make different types of decisions together. Major decisions we will face later (and hope to have an updated decision making process for) include articulating our criteria for determining membership rights and responsibilities, our processes for navigating conflict well together, when and how to acquire property, co-living and multi-site collectivising agreements, etc.,

MINOR DECISIONS: Minor decisions are those with low-risk and easily-reversible outcomes. For now, we are using this for all operational decisions needed to keep the project moving forward. Examples of operational decisions include selecting professionals who can review our T2S model, choosing a location for hosting our next assembly, prioritising the next tasks needed to move the project forward, selecting a process for documenting our decisions, etc.,

CONSENSUS DECISION-MAKING: forming a consensus is a way of reaching agreement by discussing all opinions, ideas and concerns and collaborating to find solutions that everyone involved actively support, or are at least willing to agree to. There are many ways of forming consensus agreements, with different degrees of structure and formality as appropriate to the group. The key to making consensus work is for everyone to express their needs and viewpoints clearly, and for the group to use this information to find a solution which resolves differences enough to build on common ground. A consensus process typically follows some variation of the following stages: introduction; clarification; open discussion (focusing on expressing different perspectives); exploration (focusing on potential solutions); proposal; amendments; agreement-test; and implementation. It is important to remember that consensus agreements function best when everyone shares a common goal and are willing to work together towards it. Finding a solution usually relies on people being flexible about their preferences in order to meet all the core needs. This requires a lot of trust. For examples of different consensus decision making processes, see those used by Seeds of Change, Friends of the Earth Australia, and as articulated in ‘Consensus-Oriented Decision-Making’ by Tim Hartnett (2011). There are also a range of approaches that modify consensus options and/or include consensus as part of a broader approach to making decisions, such as by adding different rules to resolve different types of decisions , including processes for establishing ‘quick’ consensus, or laying consensus approaches by forming delegated spokescouncils.

CONSENT DECISION-MAKING: establishing [consent] is similar to forming a consensus agreement however, instead of seeking the best decision for the group, consent is established by the absence of objections. The premise is that everyone impacted is able to make principled objections and, if there are no objections, everyone can live with the decision even if it isn’t an ideal outcome. Therefore, rather then aiming to resolve all concerns as would be required for consensus, a consent proposal is only amended for “principled objections” (such as “I think there is a serious risk this proposal could do harm”, not “I don’t like it”). While there are many ways of establishing consent, the stages of reaching consent agreements typically includes some version of the following steps: proposal; questions: reactions; amendments; confirmation; implementation. This approach is not appropriate in all contexts, but does provide a transparent way to make low-risk time-sensitive decisions within decentralised groups. For examples of different ways consent decision-making is being conceptualised, see this account of how consent differs from consensus decision-making, and the consent principle as used in Sociocracy.

There are a range of related concepts relevant to forming longer-term decisions which we’ll explore together later. For example, see are The Hums’s outline of 4 different forms of decision-making, including decisions made via consensus or consent, as well as those decisions made under ‘advice’, and decisions made by those with a delegated ‘mandate’.

Interim Consensus Process for Major Decisions

Initially, our major decisions will be about how we function as a collective, including the principles informing our collective practices and how we make different types of decisions together.

While there are many ways of forming agreement by consensus, to start us off we are adopting a 4-stage version:

1. INTRODUCTION, OPEN DISCUSSION, & EXPLORATION: A facilitator starts a thread on Loomio, introducing an upcoming decision-point for the collective and opens a question round discussion to clarify any points, express different perspectives, and explore potential pathways forward. If an Assembly occurs during this time, the topic will be included on the agenda for some in-person discussion.
2. PROPOSAL & AMENDMENTS: Following discussion, the facilitator will make a proposal and run a sense check (e.g., a gradients-of-agreement poll) to encourage discussion of any concerns. If an Assembly occurs during this time, the topic will be included on the agenda for some in-person sense-making. The facilitator can amend the proposal as needed and run another sense-check.
3. AGREEMENT-TEST When the proposal is stable, the facilitator will start a formal ‘consensus proposal’ on Loomio to test for agreement. Note that those who choose to block agreement at this stage will be expected to take responsibility for updating the proposal and facilitating a new round of decision-making.
4. IMPLEMENTATION: The facilitator summarises the outcome and initiates any steps required for implementation (e.g., updating the handbook)

Interim Process for Delegating Minor Decisions to Crew

Minor decisions are those with low-risk and easily-reversible outcomes. Examples of minor decisions include selecting professionals who can review our T2S model, choosing a location for hosting our next assembly, prioritising the next tasks needed to move the project forward, selecting a process for documenting our decisions, etc.,

Our interim process for making minor decisions is to delegate specific types of decisions to a crew through a consent process. This process is intended to help Crew establish consent from Voyagers to continue making the specific types of operational decisions needed to start implementing the RAD Housing goals for our collective.

In this context, consent is similar to consensus, but instead of seeking the best decision for the group, consent is the absence of objections (‘I can live with this decision’). Rather than aiming to resolve all concerns, the proposal is only amended for ‘principled objections’ (such as “I think there is a serious risk this proposal could do harm”, not “I don’t like it”).

While there are many ways of forming agreement via consent, we will follow a simplified process (until we have a chance to collaborate on a more nuanced one). The steps in this process are:

1. PROPOSAL & QUESTIONS: As part of the crew report-back during the assembly, a crew will identify types of decision needed to move the project forward and invite clarification questions.
2. REACTIONS: Following clarifications, the facilitator runs an in-person sense check poll to test for reactions.
3. AMENDMENTS: Those with concerns are able to suggest specific constructive modifications to the proposal for further discussion.
4. CONFIRMATION: The crew can then post a formal ‘Consent proposal’ on Loomio (adding any amendment)
5. IMPLEMENTATION: The facilitor then closes the proposal and summarises the outcome on Loomio for documentation.

In between Assemblies, crew can also seek advice from Voyagers to increase the range of perspectives informing the decisions delegated to them