This is a page where we can record the work of the Process Team.

We had the first conference call of the Process Team on Monday, May 7th, and here are the notes from that call: Process Team - May 7th conf. call

This page will be updated soon with the results of what was done at the NC meeting (June 8-10). However, I need a place to put some of the things we worked on at that meeting:
So, here is the draft of the Consensus Process that we began with at the meeting: Process Team - draft proposal passed out at the meeting.

And here is the Re-proposal that we consensed on at the end of our meeting: Process Team - Proposal consensed to by the end of the meeting.

Partial-Group Face-to-Face Decision Processes DISCUSSION STARTER ONLY!

(May 2007) Members may submit items for decisions at community face-to-face meetings.
Items may either be a concrete proposal
(example: proposal to graze 3 sheep in the grassy strip by the road),
or a particular issue or set of issues
(example: local gov't is complaining the grass is too high in the strip by the road)
from which the community will craft a proposal during the meeting.
Note that even concrete proposals may be refined in the meeting
(example: instead of sheep,
Pat will pasture a horse there as needed to keep the grass under control).
(FYI in RiverRock, we call these items 'agenda tickets')

Community meetings where some members are absent
are empowered to make decisions about particular items
binding upon the community, only when an item:

1. Is announced to decisionmaking members ahead of time.
2. No formal objection from a hardship absentee decisionmaking member is heard.

An item for decisionmaking is announced by e-mailing
to the member's mailing list at least 5 days prior to the meeting.
(a longer time is probably worth considering)

The announcement is intended for members to make an informed choice
whether they feel they absolutely must be part of the process out of concern
that otherwise they may not support the decision.
Only members who feel they absolutely must be involved,
who cannot attend the meeting due to hardship,
register their formal objection to decisionmaking on that item
by email to the member's mailing list at least 4 hours prior to the meeting.

Objecting members and other community members are encouraged to work
together to find a way to meet the objecting member's needs to feel
comfortable with the group decision. Strategies may include clear
communication of specific concerns to the meeting and educating
attending members about the objecting member's views.
Objecting members may withdraw their objection up to 4 hours prior to
the meeting.

Members absent for reasons other than hardship agree to:

1. learn the decision
2. support it
3. to address their concerns through standard community processes, for example by re-opening the decision
4. to learn background from members who were present prior to widely expressing their concerns

All members who will be absent are encouraged to:

1. communicate their positions to those meeting with the understanding that their positions are not binding upon those at the meeting
2. determine who will be attending and whether they feel their interests are well represented by those people

There is no formal quorum.

Time-sensitive decisions may not be able to tolerate formal objections.

Very urgent decisions may need non-consensus and/or smaller-group consensus methods.

(I rambled about related values on the discussion page -Pablito)

General/Overall Consensus Process for making decisions DISCUSSION STARTER ONLY!

This is a very rough first draft of an overall consensus process for our group:

The following is a possible Consensus Decision Making Process that we will use for all major decisions. We are open to the possibility that all decisions might not need to be made by this procedure, however this process will be the default, and if the group feels that there are some decisions or categories of decisions that do not need to be made by full consensus then the decision to use another method will have to be made by the following Consensus process.

• STEP #1: Discussion/Brainstorming stage

During this time we will name the topic or issue and begin collecting input and ideas and positions from all members and supporters. We can have a “tool box” of different ideas, such as the method that Jari introduced to us. I believe that it would be helpful to have a “topic champion” 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 champion” 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.

• STEP #2: Articulate a Proposal

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

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

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

• STEP #3: Collecting all concerns

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 given by other members during the discussion/brainstorming 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 champion” or “working group” to record all the concerns, and to let the group know when it is time to move to step #4.

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: Brainstorm/discussion about each concern

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 and to abide by the agreed upon Behavioral Ground rules.

It will be the responsibility of the “topic champion” or “working group” to state as clearly as possible which concern is being discussed, to give enough time for all members to give their input, and to collect the suggestions for resolution and/or compromise.

If necessary the Conflict Resolution Process that we have agreed to will be used during this stage.

• STEP #5 Re-articulate the Proposal

The “topic champion” or “working group” will re-articulate the proposal based on all the input from the discussion/brainstorming 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 skip to STEP #6

• STEP #6: Consensus

If there are no concerns expressed by the deadline or all concerns have been address then consensus is reached. The proposal will be evaluated by the “process team” (or some team that we establish for this purpose) to see if it meets the criteria for consensus, which we need to articulate. What we have now:

(From the minutes of the KC meeting)

1. Have all points of view been expressed?
2. Have all concerns been resolved? Or have all concerns been thoughtfully considered by the group?
3. Can we live with this decision?
4. is this in the best interest of our community?

Or

(From the River Rock documents)

1. A thorough discussion of the issue has occurred
2. Those with concerns have spoken
3. Everyone can live with the proposed decision
4. The decision is in the best interest of the community)

If there are still concerns then we can either

1. Ask the member with the concern if they are willing to Stand Aside, if they are then we can go to STEP #6.
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.

Consensus Training Proposal Draft

Here is a draft of a proposal that stemmed from the decision that everyone who can block a decision must be trained in consensus:

The Reclaiming Community is committed to consensus decision making. All members must complete the consensus training process described below in order to fully understand and participate in decision making. Supporters are strongly encouraged to complete the consensus training process; however, they are not able to block decisions until they are offered membership. (Did we consens on this?)

Consensus Training:

1. The person receives a consensus packet containing the group mission and vision statements, the consensus model, and other processes concerning decision making.

2. The person is assigned a mentor to review the consensus packet with the person and answer any questions they may have.

3. The person attends a consensus training at a face-to-face meeting offered by the Process Team. These trainings will be offered at every face-to-face gathering and will take one to two hours.

4. The mentor and the trainer of the face-to-face training will make a recommendation as to the person's comprehension of the group's consensus model. If further instruction is needed the mentor and trainer will outline the steps of the further instruction with their recommendation.

For Founding Members:

1. All founding members will receive a consensus packet containing the group mission and vision, the consensus model, and other processes concerning decision making.

2. The founding members will break up into small groups to review the consensus packet and clarify questions.

3. Each founding member will attend a consensus training at a face-to-face gathering. The founding members will have one year to complete this training. The founding member will be able to block decisions during this time. If the founding member does not complete the training within one year's time, they will no longer be able to block decision. The founding member may appeal to the group for an extension. An extension may be granted for extenuating circumstances, by consensus of the members.