Guidelines for Consensus Decision-Making

Introduction

This document outlines a simple process for making decisions by consensus, along with a way of implementing the process using electronic communication. Working groups may adapt this process to their needs.

By consensus, we mean a process in which any participant can veto any proposal, and in which silence is considered to mean assent. Consensus decision-making has several advantages over voting:

• It requires less effort, because there is no need to tally votes or to make sure that everyone has voted.
• In a system of majority rule, some participants may not feel responsible for decisions they voted against. In a consensus-based process, all participants share equal responsibility for the decisions that are taken.
• A consensus-based process provides a strong incentive to understand each other's points of view, to negotiate, and to compromise, because the minority is as powerful as the majority.
• By the same token, it allows lucid nonconformists to block decisions that are motivated by conformism.

The process described here can only work if there are clear criteria for determining who has the right to participate in it. Those criteria are beyond the scope of this document; we recommend using the model described in Guidelines for Volunteer Working Groups.

Note that this process is not appropriate for all situations. For example, when there is an urgent problem, someone may need to fix it without getting approval from the group. Other decisions are too insignificant to require the group's approval. Some groups are too large to be able to use consensus, and must use delegation. This process is for situations in which there is adequate time for discussion, and for issues that are felt to require the group's attention.

The Process

1. A group member makes a proposal. It is recommended that proposals take the form described in another document Guidelines for Volunteer Working Groups.
2. Discussion of the proposal takes place, if needed.
3. If other members have concerns about the proposal, they can suggest modifications or amendments. The initiator tries to accommodate all concerns raised.
4. When the initiator feels that a rough consensus has been reached, he or she calls for consensus, by asking if anyone wants to 'stand aside' or 'block'. Standing aside means 'I disagree with some aspects of the project, but my disagreement isn't serious enough to justify blocking it.' A block functions as a veto. It is acceptable to block a proposal only if you think that it violates the fundamental principles or purposes of being in the group, or if you think it endangers the very existence of the group.
5. If the proposal is blocked, the initiator may either drop the proposal, or continue the discussion in order to reach a compromise, and then call for consensus again.

Means of Communication

We recommend that the proposal, and any call for consensus, be published on an Internet mailing list. In a consensus-based process, a mailing list provides several advantages over other forms of communication:

• Proposals can be easily circulated via email.
• It is not necessary for all members to be physically present in the same place, at the same time, in order to reach decisions; decisions can therefore be discussed whenever the need arises, with all involved taking part.
• Mailing list archives provide a public record of discussions and their outcomes, rendering the group transparent and accountable. They make the group's accumulated knowledge available to many, as a resource for newcomers and for other groups. Archives are especially valuable for volunteer organizations, since they allow new members equal access to the details of the organisation's internal history, and because, by promoting openness, they nurture trust.
• Mailing lists can prevent the syndrome in which one needs to be in the right place at the right time, when a decision is being discussed, in order to have power over that decision. If important decisions must be taken by means of an open process on a mailing list (as opposed to, say, at a dinner to which a few friends have been invited), all members of the group can exercise their power in taking those decisions. This makes it less likely that hidden power structures will arise, or that power will be concentrated in the hands of a few people.

When a mailing list is used for taking decisions, the following rules apply:

• All proposals must be posted on the list, and must include the word 'Proposal' in the subject line, so they can easily be identified.
• Discussion of the proposal takes place on the list. You can discuss the proposal off the list (e.g. in person), but you must post a summary of any non-trivial off-list discussion on the list.
• If the initiator feels that the proposal is not controversial, she can call for consensus when making the proposal, by saying something like, 'This proposal will be considered accepted if there is no discussion within one week.'
• After a call for consensus, there is a waiting period. A typical waiting period is one week, but a group may agree (e.g. in its charter) to use different waiting periods for different types of decisions. If, at the end of the waiting period, there has been no further discussion and the proposal hasn't been blocked, it is considered to have been accepted by the group. The initiator must then post a message on the list to say that the proposal has been accepted.

Thus, for non-controversial proposals, the process consists of sending two emails: one to state the proposal, and one to say that it has been accepted.

See also Functional and Non-Functional Decision-Making Processes - Lowest-Common-Denominator-Working-Practices

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. To contact us, please use the openorg-dev mailing list.

Translations

These are translations of an earlier version of this document.