Clarification of CoTech decision-making process

"if there is less money at stake the decision should be quicker. Why do you believe that?"

At Outlandish we once went down the "everything must be discussed until there is consensus" route and we nearly went bust. We had a huge number of discussions about whether we wanted to pitch for small projects, and didn't successfully pitch for any while the process/principle was in place.

We now have very clear guidance on what needs discussing properly. Broadly they are things that will significantly address the business, such as changing the rules of membership. Anything that is within the existing rules people just do without asking for permission.

Personally I think that this is currently a do-ocracy - arrange and event, sell a collaboration, organise and exchange with another organisation, etc.

Outlandish want a framework agreement in place. We'll propose one and then enter it with individual co-ops if we can't get consent for the agreement from everyone.

I feel the discussion around Wortley Hall and the more accessible 'young co-operators' camp was an example of how Loomio can be at odds with a do-ocracy. Lots of people said they wanted it to happen, lots of people voted for it, quite a lot of people said they'd help organise it, and then only a group of fairly veteran co-operators who are all going to Wortley Hall anyway ended up going.

In my experience of working within a consensus based decision-making cooperative, the approach taken was about enabling everyone involved to a) understand the issue through Q&A and b) to express their opinion, with the goal of creating shared understanding, and through that achieve the best outcome for everyone involved. Good Loomio practice in support of this approach, again in my experience, means that a proposal is commonly only set out after participants have had the opportunity to engage with the issues, and in that way the proposal can itself take account of the position/s taken by participants and therefore be more likely to achieve broad support.

In a face to face meeting it's also common to have a chair, who can manage the discussion and ensure that the two points above are achieved as much as possible. I think that these are good practices that support consensus.

I support @asimong 's position on this stuff, and so will also disagree with the proposal as it stands. Happy to help draft an alternative.

Do-ocracy.

True.

Yes, and all credit to those who organised and went. Do-ocracy in action!

:)

Pete Burden

And just to say, I am also really enjoying this discussion and dialogue about principles, consensus, consent etc, as well as valuing lots of 'doing'.

Personally, I think we need both (plus a focus on practice and an awareness of the emerging group dynamics!).

I don't wish to block things, but if we are going to accept this proposal as it stands, we should at least acknowledge that it does not amount to consensus decision-making. It does not encourage or incentivise broader participation which, by the evidence gathered by Chris, is clearly an issue that needs addressing. What it does enable is effective control by a vocal minority and removes the right of veto.

What it does enable is effective control by a vocal minority and removes the right of veto.

Can you explain why you think it'll remove the right of veto, @graham2? I think we're imagining that a "block" vote would effectively veto the proposal.

Perhaps I'm misreading the text of the proposal? It says 'no block votes'.

@graham2:

Perhaps I'm misreading the text of the proposal? It says 'no block votes'.

Yes, I'm sorry for the confusion, I meant it to mean that a proposal should not be accepted if it had any "block" votes.

Firstly I want to apologise for not actively participating in this discussion having kicked it off in the first place. I also want to thank everyone who has contributed - I've learnt a lot from the discussion.

I only posted my proposal as a starting point and fully expected people to have alternative ideas. I had also assumed other people would feel free to post alternative proposals which I think Loomio allows.

However, this doesn't seem to have happened and so there has probably been undue focus on my original proposal which clearly wasn't very well thought through. In particular, in hindsight, I probably shouldn't have used the word "consensus" in conjunction with allowing proposals to be accepted when "disagree" votes have been registered.

Like @chrisroos my motivation for kicking off the discussion was to establish some kind of default ground rules for CoTech decision-making on Loomio. I care more about having some default rules than about exactly what those rules are.

What @harryrobbins said about "good enough" decisions resonated with me and perhaps that should've been the title of my proposal.

Given how few people have participated in this discussion and the relatively even split in the voting, I'm not sure it's safe to draw any significant conclusion from it other than that we should continue to discuss the matter. I’ll add an “outcome” to this effect shortly.

Love do-ocracy except if it mystifies material inputs/outputs in terms of money and labour, or turns into meritocracy.

Points.

(Still, neat word :)

What exactly is do-ocracy? I'm sure we all get the general idea — JFDI — but when you start to look more closely, I'm wondering how you resolve the issues that are not just able to be dealt with in a superficial way? Are there certain conditions under which a "do-ocracy" flourishes effectively, and if so, what are they? What are the counter-indications? Without this kind of level of reflection, I'm finding it hard to take people seriously when they advocate for a do-ocracy.

Hi Simon. A great challenge.

For me, and I don't know if this was what Harry meant, a 'do-ocracy' is a way of organising (note it's a verb, not a noun like 'organisation') where we accept we cannot know or control the future (even though our anxiety desires us to believe we can) and where, therefore, admitting this, we act, see what happens, reflect (on results and context), and act again.

This is an approach codified in management thinking by people like Reg Revans - in (critical) action learning, action research etc. But, for me, it's more than that: it's a philosophy, and a way of being that can be learnt and brought into all aspects of working life.

Obviously, it runs counter to much traditional thinking about organisations which assumes we can plan and control, and more so, that some people have that right more than others (the so-called 'leaders').

Sometimes what we 'do' impacts, or may impact, other people. When we are concerned about this, I think consent-based decision-making (as in Sociocracy) can make what may sound like a rather individualistic process into a much more social one.

Pete

Interesting reply, thanks @peteburden -- a great help in surfacing the assumptions that may be being made here.

In terms of grammar, perhaps you mean "word that implies action"? There's no difference in grammar to me between "do-ocracy" and "democracy". Many nouns imply action.

As it happens, I'm a great fan of Reg Revans, though I haven't been reading him recently. And I don't really think it's fair to Revans to say that his approach could be called "do-ocracy".

I agree with you in dismissing the idea that everything can be planned and controlled, and that only some people have enough knowledge or competence to play any part in that planning and control. The things that can be planned and controlled, can be only while the assumptions hold, that were the basis of the planning (explicitly or, more dangerously, implicitly). On the other hand, if you believe that some particular aspect of things cannot be planned or controlled, then it is really helpful to point out the assumption that doesn't hold.

What about the converse? Who believes that nothing can be planned for or controlled? A planning approach runs counter to much primitive, magical thinking that believes that many things can only be controlled by ceremonies to appease deities. (Having said that, I acknowledge some fascinating similarities between magical thinking and a good understanding of human psychology.)

"what we 'do' impacts, or may impact, other people"

Yes. Almost always. I take that seriously; I'm sure you do, and I guess that everyone reading here does so as well. We can only know how it impacts other people by asking them, or knowing them very well. This, for me, is one of the drivers for a consensus-oriented approach to decision-making.

Can we please get back to trying to understand what people actually mean by "do-ocracy"?

I just came across the "Definitions for voting" section in the "Worker Co-operative Solidarity Fund Operating Manual". This is the sort of thing we'd like to come up with for this Loomio group.

I'm pasting it here too to save people a click:

Definitions for voting

Agree
I support the proposal

Abstain
I don’t wish to express a view for or against, but I’m willing to be counted as part of the necessary majority if that’s what it takes to pass the proposal

Disagree
I think there might be a better alternative, but I’m willing to go with the majority decision

Block
I believe the proposal goes against the Fund’s agreed rules or purposes, or would create unacceptable risk to the Fund.

8.6. In order to pass, the number of members voting to Agree plus the number of members voting to Abstain must be at least 75% of the total votes cast.

8.7. If 5% or more of the votes are to ‘Block’ then the proposal will not succeed. Whether the number of ‘Block’ votes reaches 5% or not, any member casting a ‘Block’ vote should set out their reasons in the associated discussion thread, and participate in any subsequent discussion aimed at resolving the issue. This should be considered a responsibility of membership.

“It’s like pulling the emergency lever on a tube train. You will have to justify it”
(N. Brown)

8.8. For important proposals, such as changes to the Rules, a 30% quorum level of Loomio-registered members will be required, in addition to a 75% majority of agree + abstain votes.

8.9. Common sense should apply to the length of time needed for a proposals to be issues and a deadline for voting. Normally, this would be at least two weeks.

Thanks, @chrisroos Very similar to Loomio's description.

I'd like to work to refine the meaning of "disagree" and "block" in terms of process. As it happens, we're working on something very similar in our Cohousing community right now.

Later addition: actually I see there is lots of useful material on the Loomio site itself. It might help if people read and discussed that, before labouring to reinvent it.

I'm agreeing with you, really, @chrisroos :)

@asimong I think Pete was suggesting that democracy means "government by the masses" while do-ocracy suggests "government through doing" - it suggests how power will be wielded, rather than who will wield it.

e.g. "do-ocracy" is an alternative to "vote-ocracy" rather than "democracy". FWIW I would hope to see a lot more doing than voting.

Thank you Harry @harryrobbins for continuing to explain the assumptions here.

If government is "through doing", what counts as "doing"? What about the less active people that are affected by what someone is doing? Do they not get a say? And aren't you saying that the people who wield power are the doers, rather than those who stand by?

I'm all for a discussion of how power is to be wielded. I agree that one symptom of a healthy state of affairs is that there is a lot more doing than voting. Another, perhaps equally important symptom of health is that people are feeling solidarity, and are happy with -- not feeling threatened by -- the actions taken, whether or not they have been formally agreed. I'd point out that the only way to achieve this last positive result is, at least, to consult people transparently, with a mind open to hearing unexpected reservations. What then follows disagreement should be dialogue, where both sides listen to the other; learn from each other; and work towards consensus. That way, better decisions can be made, and more positive actions taken, without often needing formality or voting.

Like Harry, I prefer a do-ocracy to a vote-ocracy.

I also prefer to work in a place where forgiveness is asked more than permission. Where people are encouraged to try things action-learning-like rather than theorising or designing structures that may or not may work in practice.

For me the world is filled with people and experts commenting and giving opinions. Personally, I think that might all be a distraction.

I am also very keen on a consent-based model of decision-making because for me that allows things to get done, more often than other models - either consensus or voting.

I like simple, easy to remember and use, models.

But those are just my personal preferences. I am really interested to hear about others ideas.

"people are encouraged to try things action-learning-like rather than theorising or designing structures that may or not may work in practice."

great!

"people and experts commenting and giving opinions"

I'd guess it's well recognised that people who give opinions on things that don't practically affect them aren't necessarily contributing positively to any decision.

When I read "I prefer a do-ocracy to a vote-ocracy", I'm feeling a bit of frustration because what I really want is to have the opportunity to find out what we agree on already, and what I can learn about you, or life, that I don't already know. The words may be getting in the way.

Many people have put a lot of effort into exploring ways to do "consensus" well in practice, but have kept hold of the term "consensus", while interpreting it in ways that are similar to what other people mean by "consent". Saying or implying that consensus is sub-optimal disrespects their efforts and meanings, and risks serving to start argumentation rather than dialogue.

A principle which I find very helpful in these kinds of situation is if both sides let go of their preferred terminology for the moment, and talk about what they find helpful or unhelpful in neutral terms. Often, when we have the courage to let go of our own terminology, we are surprised by the amount of common ground.

Well said, Simon, thanks.

Re consent, consensus, I am sorry. A trap I sometimes fall into.

It sounds like we agree terminology can get in the way of understanding.

We also seem to agree that practical action is to be preferred to theorising.

In the spirit of surfacing assumptions and getting to know one another, I'd like to hear how familiar people are with the basic 'consent'-building process as used in eg Sociocracy?

And what other means of gaining 'consensus' are currently in use?

While not wanting to completely put aside the idea that much progress happens outside of formal decision-making processes (which may be what the do-ocracy idea relates to) I hope this might move us forward.

Following on from the apparent disagreements over DLC membership and the decision-making on that topic, do folks prefer to extend this thread, or start a new, broader discussion on governance, which I guess could include evolving the constitution as well as detailing process and practice around and supporting decision-making, as well as decision-making itself?