Zelda Wiki:Consensus Democracy
Overview
Consensus decision making is a tool to help ensure that fair decisions are made. It is not a flawless procedure, but by following the Community Pillars and the guidelines laid out here, we can help to prevent unfair results and the consolidation of power over other members of the community. When used properly, consensus decision making can help improve proposals and develop more creative solutions to problems. Decision making is not an end unto itself, it is a creative and collaborative process and no participant should be ignored.
In order for consensus decision making to work, participants must agree on our guiding principles, the Community Pillars, to navigate conversations and ensure an equitable outcome. The process must be communicated and understood by all participants. All active contributors are able to participate in the consensus democracy procedure. The criteria for activity is detailed below in the Participants section.
Summary of Community Pillars
Unity of Purpose: even if we don't agree on a proposal, we should share a common goal. Decisions should be carried out with a helpful heart and an open mind.
Self Empowerment: every participant should have a voice in the process and we should be conscious of who holds power in discussions so that we may make space to include those that don't.
Trust: we must be willing to trust each other and to check ourselves on behalf of others.
Conflict Resolution: conflict may arise during these discussions, and we should be ready to resolve that in a healthy and mature manner.
Respect of Cultural and Personal Differences: we each come from our own unique backgrounds and we should acknowledge these to better inform the decisions that we make.
Patience: decisions cannot be made fairly if we do not have the patience for the process and the people involved. There is no reason to rush when we collaborate.
Possible Issues of Consensus Democracy
There are a number of important issues to keep in mind when using this process:
| Known issues | Potential solutions |
|---|---|
| Consensus decision making may be used to alienate and exclude people, especially with the belief that it is the only way to resolve problems. | We must examine the causes for why people may feel alienated and work to correct them. If necessary, we may make use of other methods to solve problems. |
| Consensus decisions can be mistaken for unanimous consent. | Consensus is reached when all concerns for action have been addressed. Consensus can still be reached with disagreements, and we have processes to ensure that these are recorded and resolved in order to progress with proposals. |
| Dissent can be viewed as an obstacle or a distraction, and solutions can be forced to be homogenous. | We should not assume that a dissenting opinion equals antagonism. We should instead try to expand the options available to us even if they're not necessarily favorable. |
| Silence is mistaken for consent, and discussions may be dominated by a few voices. | We should encourage that all participants are given the opportunity to contribute so that as many options are explored as necessary. Facilitators and other roles should rotate frequently to avoid establishing patterns of authority. We should also ask ourselves, "who is affected by this? Are they represented in this discussion?" |
| Systemic inequality can still skew conversations. | In order to minimize harm, we should be careful to observe the power that people in conversations hold and adjust accordingly. |
| Facilitators and other guiding roles in discussions may (even unknowingly) steer conversations to an outcome that they view as favorable. | These roles should ideally be filled by people who can take a neutral stance to the proposals. If neutrality isn't possible, all possible biases should be made clear from the start in order to account for possible skews in direction. |
| Discussions can reach a standstill. | If discussions cannot advance, we should consider various options like taking a break and look at the bigger picture, arguing from opposing viewpoints, establishing points of agreement, and identifying assumptions and biases. Issues arising from blocking are covered below.
If no consensus can be reached, we should consider a different decision making process. |
Roles
Roles should be decided when starting a consensus decision process. These should be rotated fairly regularly between proposals so that no one person solely occupies and exerts power over a role. These roles work to guide the decision making process in a fair and equitable way. Because this process is meant to spread the power of making decisions and prevent any one person from hoarding power, these specialized roles should ideally be filled by different people and given to only one person at a time, though participants may fulfill multiple roles if appropriate. Any participant can take on a role, provided they are prepared to carry out its responsibilities.
Participants
Participants are an implicit part of the decision making process. When taking part in consensus democracy, all participants should be prepared to carry out the consequences of the decisions they reach.
Active contributors are determined by whether they:
- are reasonably active on the wiki for at least 6 months.
- show that they follow the Community Pillars.
- regularly take part in collaborative curation of content on the wiki, such as helping people with problems or asking for help when needed, reporting issues in the #wiki-tech channel on Discord, and participating through Wiki Collabs.
If a contributor meets the criteria above, the community may initiate an asynchronous meeting over Discord with the contributor to review their compatibility with the criteria and to ensure that they understand what is expected of them through the consensus democracy process. If a proposed contributor does not fully meet the criteria, this should be discussed with the contributor and the meeting should be postponed for one month to allow the contributor to display that they meet the criteria. This is to ensure that participants are ready and able to undergo the process and to carry out the necessary work of the proposals.
Coordinator
The Coordinator keeps track of what is happening, who does what, and what needs to be done. They ensure that the process is followed and that the responsibilities of the roles are met.
Facilitator
The Facilitator is a guide for the topic of the proposal. They keep the discussion on topic and must ensure that the conversation does not advance prematurely. For example, they should be prepared to interrupt during Step 1 if anyone attempts to make arguments in favor or against a proposal, as this is meant for Step 2.
The Facilitator also summarizes key points regularly based on the documentation that the Scribe provides, and ensures that everyone has a chance to voice their concerns. The Facilitator should not have strong opinions about a given proposal. If this is unavoidable, they should make their biases known so that their influence over the discussion can be minimized.
The Facilitator should create a safe and comfortable environment to let ideas flow, and may oversee the use of blocking in coordination with the Peacekeeper. They should be vigilant to ensure that nobody, including themselves, hoards power in a discussion.
Timekeeper
The Timekeeper is a guide who watches over the passage of time during a proposal and can remind participants about time-sensitive things.
Peacekeeper
The Peacekeeper handles conflict in accordance with the Community Pillars and the principles of the group. They should be prepared to diffuse tension and also provide positive feedback when the group operates well.
Scribe
The Scribe documents the proposal itself as soon as roles are set. They write down points, concerns, and ideas during the brainstorming process. They work closely with the Facilitator and Coordinator to keep notes of the discussions and decisions so newcomers and latecomers can stay up to date on the process. This role is focused on documenting the status and progression of the proposal so that other roles can help the proposal advance.
Though the Scribe documents the proposal itself, it is not the Scribe's job to answer questions or illustrate and explain points on behalf of the person making the proposal.
Undergoing the Consensus Process
Consensus democracy begins when someone brings forward a proposal. The proposal can and should grow with the group. No one person owns a proposal, others can build onto them but not override another's. Consensus will be reached multiple times throughout the process, though only when it is resolved in Step 4 can a decision be finalized and acted upon.
The process for consensus democracy follows this order:
- Step 1
- A proposal is brought forward.
- Roles are set in place to help guide the proposal along and to document it on the wiki.
- Clarifications to the proposal are made.
- Step 2
- Discussion for the proposal begins.
- The
Facilitatorfor the discussion asks for consensus: "Are there any concerns remaining?" This continues until all concerns have been voiced. - The
Facilitatordeclares consensus and moves the discussion to the next phase.
- Step 3
- The
Scribelists the concerns raised in the previous phase. - Once this is done, the community can look for patterns and connections between the concerns.
- Clarifying questions should be asked about the concerns, to avoid misconceptions or projections.
- The
- Step 4
- The next phase begins to resolve the concerns previously raised.
- If consensus is reached afterwards, the proposal goes through.
- If consensus cannot be reached, discuss why and what other options are available.
- If consensus cannot be reached even after this, the community should move on to a different proposal.
Step 1: Proposal
The purpose of the first step is to set a clear proposal that can be discussed. When a proposal is put forward, roles should be selected to help guide the process.
Before any discussion about the proposal itself begins, participants should ask any clarifying questions they may have about the proposal. This is not the time to share concerns, ideas, or comments on the proposal just yet. The point of this is strictly for mutual understanding before the discussion begins. Depending on the situation, the person coming forward with a proposal should consider using Sandboxes to help illustrate what changes would be made. These are not final drafts and may be iterated upon as many times as needed by every participant involved later.
Step 2: Discussion
The discussion stage should be when general discussion about the proposal takes place.
These following questions should be made clear during this step:
- What is being proposed?
- What problem is this proposal addressing?
- Why is it a good idea? How does this proposal solve that?
- Why is it a good idea for the community? What relevance does it have for our situation?
- What are the facts related to this proposal?
- Is it in line with the Community Pillars?
- Who does this proposal affect? Are they included?
- What are some of the problems with the proposal?
Concerns should be phrased constructively. "I am concerned about ..., because ..." is more effective for a conversation than overt and direct criticism of an idea. No further attempts should be made to defend the proposal or to judge and resolve the concerns raised.
When these and all other available questions have been answered, the Facilitator should call for consensus. This is not asking for everyone to agree or for a decision to be reached. This means asking, "Are there any concerns remaining?" until all concerns have been voiced. Only when all participants have taken part and there are no remaining concerns can consensus can be declared and the next step can begin.
Step 3: Review
The review step is when the concerns are made clear and easily understood. This is not the time to resolve the concerns, only to understand them. For this step, the Scribe lists the concerns raised in the previous step. It is the responsibility of the participants to look for patterns and connections between the concerns. Clarifying questions should be asked about the concerns to avoid misconceptions and projections. When the concerns have been addressed and all participants have contributed successfully, the participants may move on to resolve them in the next step.
Step 4: Resolution
The resolution step is meant to come to an agreement on a course of action to take. All previous concerns should be discussed and worked through to determine what actions are acceptable and what concessions may need to be made. There are different ways to resolve concerns, depending on the type of concern. Some concerns can lead to modifications of the proposal, some can lead to better ideas about the proposal itself, and some concerns may raise other concerns when they are resolved. This is a creative and collaborative process, so we should be flexible in our approach to resolve concerns.
Once the list of concerns has been exhausted, a call for consensus may be made ("Are there any concerns remaining?"). If consensus is reached and everyone agrees to carry out the actions discussed, the proposal successfully moves through. If not, the participants should discuss why. If consensus cannot be reached after this and a concern remains unresolved, in addition to the problems and solutions listed above there are two options that the person who raised the concern may take:
- They may choose to stand aside, letting the proposal go through as everyone else consents. This should be documented so that it can be discussed later as needed. If they choose to stand aside, they do not have a responsibility for the consequences of the decision and do not have to help implement the decisions reached.
- If they truly feel strongly about their concern, they can elect to declare a block. Blocks are a serious expression of disagreement and should only be done after careful consideration with the Peacekeeper and Facilitator and only if they cannot live with the consequences and are able to explain why. If a participant regularly uses blocks, disassociation from the blocker may be the best option for the group. What this looks like should be decided on a case-by-case basis, but misuse of this right is a serious matter. This may be a sign the person responsible is not be capable of upholding the Community Pillars necessary to engage in the process, though unhappiness should be addressed long before the blocking stage. The need for a block may be the result of an incompatibility or a sign that concerns weren't properly discussed. The option to block is a tool to ensure that people have control over decisions that directly affect them, so it is critical that it is not underused, overused, or misused.
If consensus cannot be reached, the community should then move to a different proposal. If consensus is reached and the proposal passes, participants should delegate work among each other to carry out the necessary tasks that were decided during the process.
