Mon 12 Aug 2013 8:42AM

What is the best percentage of agreement for decision making?

JG Jammie Gregory Public Seen by 16

Ideally it would be 100% agreement, but is that realistic? At what percentage should we consider a vote good enough? Or should action be delayed until we agree that we have to go with the most agreement we got and just put a deadline on things?


Gene Cox Wed 14 Aug 2013 3:41AM

For our plans in the website, I have been saying 95% consensus, but this number hasn't been discussed as a team.


Jammie Gregory Wed 14 Aug 2013 4:50AM

Maybe we could do something like for each percentage point from 100 we delay 1-7 days before finalizing a decision, the longer it's delayed the better decisions the group would make... except anything under maybe 80% doesn't get finalized perhaps. "finalized" maybe that shouldn't be the word either, since new proposals could be risen up to overtake old ones if they have a greater % of agreement than the old proposals. Or if someone says they just can't live with a decision "red flag" we may need to delay things even further to try and find compromise.


Gene Cox Wed 14 Aug 2013 7:42PM

Great thinking! I will share a doc that I was up until 2:30 this morning hammering out, when I get home.


Thomas A. Anderson Sun 18 Aug 2013 6:07AM

personally I have been thinking that it should have more to do with having enough support (labor, skills, ect) to be able to move forward on a project, as it has more success it will often win over those originally opposed against it, so other than solid reasoning that shows doing a project or undertaking, is faulty and will damage the group or township/city, the amount depends on how many it takes to start work on it. input?


Thomas A. Anderson Sun 18 Aug 2013 6:10AM

oh I guess too, the effected outcome (who all is effected by the item on the table being voted on) should also determine the percentage right?
so say a vote to move locations since it would effect everyone should have a very high percentage of needed positive to the goal, while working on a project to produce electricity, or a cooling system, water collection in addition to what is already is completed already, would have a lower vote count as it will not really impact the rest of the group negatively while going on, unless it cuts into the time the people working on it need to be doing their part to make sure current needs are being handled (like planting harvesting, current water collection and purification, shelter building, ect. :)


Jammie Gregory Sun 18 Aug 2013 7:16AM

I'm not sure what you mean Thomas about "the amount depends on how many it takes to start work on it." Do you mean that if a dozen people want to build a solar grid on the south end of the lot, and they have all the volunteers they need who agree on it, then they shouldn't need to take a vote with the other 36 residents?


Blaine Smith Sun 18 Aug 2013 3:54PM

I don't think he meant they don't need to take a vote, but the percentage to win would be smaller as the potential negative effect is smaller. Am I right Thomas?


Thomas A. Anderson Mon 19 Aug 2013 2:33AM

I think at that point Jammie, the amount of voting needed would be on where to place it rather than if it would be placed, and the vote of the situation should follow a really good con vs pro setting. Hopefully we will be free of contrarian people and most people will be willing to do what is needed to get things done, for the betterment of the group.

and yes Blaine, the less potential of a negative effect (ie if I want to use my area to establish a solar system and have the people to work on it, then it should not even need a vote. building on communal area though that others have plans to use we should definitely vote on, how that land gets used and such. you see how that could work If I want to build a massive solar system to upgrade our power, then yeah the room needed and effect on the community is much more wide spread, so everyone should have a chance to help decide on such a broad sweeping decision, however how reversable the work is, also should account for how high the percentage of vote required should be. like cutting down a tree, once that tree is gone, it can not be put back, so that I would say should be a 100% vote. But setting up a system that the materials can be reused in a small array to test out an idea, in our own area, should require a 0% vote if it is not going to effect anyone outside the area. (like maybe possibly tainting water supply, as that would be no longer contained to effecting only say my area) again I guess it will be something that all aspects should be voted on and catagorized before we move out. so everyone is clear on where we stand on things. I mean what if it is a life or death situation? do we spend all day voting and revoting trying to get everyone on board with an idea while we starve to death? or get blown away by weather? or let a 100% vote encourage us to do something that will ruin our food supply? We definitely need to hash a lot of this out so the majority of it is not even going to require a vote, as we already have it worked out and no one is showing up and then having the game changed on them once they get there :)


Jammie Gregory Mon 19 Aug 2013 4:24AM

So basically, you're saying if it effects others to a clear degree we should vote on it, if it doesn't then don't worry about it, keep the rules as simple as possible, to which I agree.


Thomas A. Anderson Tue 20 Aug 2013 1:45PM

yep :)

Load More