Another guideline is that if there is a discussion topic, which a person may or may not have complete (or merely adequate) knowledge about, making a proposal doesn't help, or if it does, it means that the proposal will lead to even more discussion, so that the result may bear little resemblance to the intent of the person who posted the discussion in the first place, who, though, didn't post the proposal, and the person who put up the proposal didn't inquire of the person who posted the discussion.

An example is the "Reparations for Native and African Americans" discussion. The proposal that is before it now, seems an odd proposal given my purpose in posting the discussion. Its possible if that proposal passes, that my purpose in starting the the discussion will be defeated. Yet maybe a new and better result will be achieved.

I don't know what the result will be if the current proposal is passed. So that discussion with its current proposal should be taken down. It would be hard to do an effective counter proposal.

I didn't expect the discussion to lead to a proposal. I was trying to narrowly open a big topic. It seems now we have a wide opening on an unknown topic.

How about proposals of a 1st draft proposal be put on the on the discussion thread b/f putting it up for a decision?

Yes. More than one proposal might be good for a discussion. I think we know that merely through slick wording, or through electronic sabotage, our words and intents can be twisted. Perhaps the instigator of the discussion should have some say on the proposal and there should be opportunities for more than one proposal. Right now, because of the proposal in the "Reparations" discussion, the result could turn into a big embarassment for us.
Tricia, could you make space for more proposals in that discussion?
I think the discussion so far could help create the sensitivity we need. However I think the current proposal will booby-trap that.

It seems loomio only allows for one proposal at a time - I agree we need a mechanism to ask for a proposal to close so another may be proposed. Please add more concrete, specific ideas for how to do it, in a sentence or phrase. Here's mine:

Ask for a Proposal to End so a new Proposal can be made.
Use a phrase [I move to end this proposal]
3? people use the phrase, the owner of the proposal removes it unless they further clarify why it should stay up.

Recap of new additions so far:

Additions:
The thresholds for consensus should be clearly defined, and the resulting decision should be posted.
I’m not against blocks if they are not given doomsday powers.
There should be some attempt to adjust the proposal to remove the reason for a block if possible.
I personally like 2/3 block overrides, without any promises to leave.
jmcg - loomiodisc 5-9

I would only share this thought, for me to do it, autonomy is important. I suggest that proposals only be made to the group that you are willing to do, coordinate and hold with or without the group’s blessing. NikiV loomiodisc 5-9

Do we need a process for adding new members? Tricia loomiodisc 5-9

blocks should not have doomsday powers - Julia loomiodisc 5-9

Blocker must really know the issues and the positions of each person and also must know the members generally and have a track-record of being involved in the particular issue, without being disruptive. Sea loomiodisc 5-9

http://natgat2014.titanpad.com/57

I still do not like percentages/fractions; I believe that blocks should only be used by someone who is finding the decision contradictory to principle, etc., and is willing to walk away from the group if it moves forward. It is then up to the group to decide if they can accommodate the objections or is willing to let the blocker walk away; either can be valid.

Levels of consensus & proposals can take all forms.

It should not be the last thing we use but a tool we can leverage when needed.

Seems to be working quite well as groups form around projects & ideas.

Discussions should be allowed to become proposals at any time..

But setting a min 7 day time frame would only be fair-

I understand the thoughts on a 7-day minimum, but would notice sent via e-mail/Facebook/etc. enable that to be cut down if needed without overly limiting people’s opportunity to participate?

I've been away at a mountain retreat for the last 48 hours. I meant to write up something at the beginning of this thread, but ran out of time before I left. I've added two things to the context at the top:
- Under "Usage" I've included some guidelines about starting off with discussions rather than proposals, levels of importance of proposal, and where to introduce a proposal (main group or a working grou).
- Guidelines for blocking in consensus. To me, this is what's always been missing (and why consensus hasn't worked so well in Occupy). The "I will leave the movement" thing has never worked for me. At the same time, overriding someone who has a principled block, IMO, is heinous. I like "Block means you’ve got serious objections and you’ll be extremely unhappy if this proposal goes ahead", although it's not our place to make sure every is happy or unhappy, so I'd prefer more concrete ways of determining whether a block is legitimate. I should be able to completely block a decision if my reasons are based on the decision violating a principle or principles we hold. The guidelines for blocking I've offered are form that intention.

I like the 2/3 override on blocks