The following is the Consensus Decision Making Process that we will use for all major decisions. We are committed to using consensus for all decision making, except for non-essential decisions (for instance, what color pens to buy) (see "loose end" at the end of this section). If the group feels that there is an essential decision that we choose to not make by consensus then the decision to use another decision making method will have to be made by the following consensus process (see "loose end" at the end of this section). We can have a “tool box” of different ideas, tools and methods that we can use during this process (see "loose end" at the end of this section).

• STEP #1: Discussion stage

During this time we will name the topic or issue and begin collecting input and ideas and positions from all members and supporters. It would be helpful to have a “topic guide” or a group of people assigned to move this stage along.

It will be the responsibility of every member to offer their honest and thoughtful input in a timely manner and to abide by the agreed upon Behavioral Ground Rules.

It will be the responsibility of the “topic guide,” facilitator, or working group to state clearly the intention, direction or scope of the topic being discussed and to give enough time for all members to give their input.

(See "loose end" at the end of this section.)

• STEP #2: Articulate a Proposal

The “topic guide,” facilitator, or working group will articulate a proposal based on all the input from the discussion stage and present it to every member with a deadline for responding with agreement or concerns.

• STEP #3: Collecting all concerns

The facilitator or “topic guide” will call for concerns.

If there are no concerns then we can skip to STEP #6.

If there are concerns then steps #3 - #5 will be followed.

It will be the responsibility of all members to express any concerns that they have with the proposal by the deadline given or to ask for more time. It is their responsibility to do their best to articulate their concerns clearly and with consideration given to the input from other members during the discussion stage. If possible, suggestions of compromises or reasons for wanting something different than the proposal should be given.

It will be the responsibility of the “topic guide,” facilitator, or working group to acknowledge and record all the concerns. When it is time to move to step #4, they will provide that list (grouped for clarity if possible) to the group.

This is not yet the time to respond to these concerns or for others to suggest compromises or to “defend” their positions, until all concerns to the original proposal have been collected.

• STEP #4: Resolving or addressing concerns

During this time each concern will be presented for a time for all members to express their opinions and feelings and to offer suggestions for resolution and/or compromise.

It will be the responsibility of every member to offer their honest and thoughtful input in a timely manner, to abide by the agreed upon Behavioral Ground rules, and to use any tools and methods that have been suggested for resolving concerns (see "loose end" at the end of this section).

It will be the responsibility of the “topic guide,” facilitator, or working group to 1) state as clearly as possible which concern is being discussed, 2) give enough time for all members to give their input, 3) guide the process of using the tools and methods that have been suggested for resolving concerns, 4) suggest possible resolutions, and 5) check with the individual who had the concern to see if it has been addressed.

• STEP #5 Re-articulate the Proposal

The “topic guide,” facilitator, or working group will re-articulate the proposal based on all the input from the resolving or addressing concerns stage and present it to every member with a deadline for responding with agreement or remaining concerns.

If there are no remaining concerns then we can proceed to STEP #6.

• STEP #6: Call for Consensus

Each decision-making member of the group will indicate their choice to “agree” with the proposal, “stand aside,” or “block” the proposal. (We are drawing from CT Butler's model of consensus for these words. See consensus.net.) (See "loose end" at the end of this section.) Those who “stand aside” are encouraged to articulate the concern that motivates the “stand aside” so that it can be recorded with the decision. If no decision-making member has blocked the proposal and there are less than 25% of decision making members standing aside, then consensus is reached.

The proposal will be evaluated by the group to see if it meets the criteria for consensus, which are:

1. Have all points of view been expressed?
2. Have all concerns been resolved or addressed by the group?
3. Can we support this decision?
4. Is this in the best interest of our community?

Once consensus is reached we agree to abide by the decision until it is altered or replaced by another community decision.

If there has been a block or the group feels that we have not met the criteria for consensus then we can either

1. Circle back to STEPS 3-5.
2. Refer the whole issue to a smaller group to seek resolution or to hold the issues for another time.
3. Declare the decision blocked.

"Loose ends" that need to be addressed later:

From the Preamble:

1. Defining “non-essential decisions”
2. Creating the process for making any decision by any method other than this default process
3. Are there any class of essential decisions that might be made by a non-consensus method?
4. Working on our “tool box”

From STEP #1:

1. What is the process for introducing a topic or issue that there is a desire for a decision about?
2. Further definition of what a topic guide is, whether it is always necessary to have a topic guide, and what about topics that don’t have a topic guide
3. Role of the facilitator needs to be defined and how that interacts with topic guide.

From STEP #4:

1. What are the possible selection of tools and methods that can be used for resolving concerns?

From STEP #6:

1. Define what is meant by “Agree”, “Stand aside” and “Block”, and determine if we want to have another option between “Stand aside” and “Block”.

For the whole proposal:

1. Fix the grammar for the whole proposal. (This loose end has been completed on 7/25/07)

Consensus was reached on this decision at the face-to-face meeting on 6/10/07, with further approval by members not present at the meeting achieved by 7/4/07.

---

On 12/6/06 we agreed on the following On-line Decision Making process.

---

At the Kansas City meeting, March 23-25, 2007 we made the following decisions in regard to decision making:

• We commit to the use of consensus as our decision making process.
• Everyone who can block a decision needs to be trained in consensus.

The following loose ends were identified and assigned to the Process team as noted:

• The particular consensus process or model that our group wants to use still needs to be further defined and a Process Team was formed to review our options and provide a proposal for the group to consider at the June/Earthaven meeting. (This loose end has been resolved with the decision at the top of this page. --Diane Schurr 10:56, 4 Jul 2007 (MDT))

• When we say that "everyone who can block a decision needs to be trained in consensus" we need to clarify what kind of training and what process or style of consensus we want to be trained in. These questions were referred to the Process Team to make recommendations to the group. (This loose end has been resolved with our decision on how to be trained which was made at the Fall 2007 meeting. --Diane Schurr 13:58, 17 Oct 2007 (MDT))

• A decision was made at the KC meeting, which met with some concerns after the meeting. The wording accepted at the meeting was "We empower the members present at face to face meetings to make decisions for the entire group, if we have a quorum and if the decision areas are announced ahead of time." We recognize 3 areas that need further clarification:

1) We need to determine what will constitute a quorum.

2) We need to clarify what we mean by "decision areas" (Our intention is to NOT be so specific as to need to list every single decision/proposal that will be decided, and yet to also NOT be so vague so that simply announcing a general topic will suffice.)

3) We need to find a way or a process to fulfill our desired intent that those members not able to be present are able to give their input ahead of time and that there has been adequate time for every member to be involved in discussions leading up to a decision.

This whole decision has been referred to the Process Team to make recommendations to the group.