1 following


##Resources on Facilitation ###Facilitation and Decision Making:<br>Potential Models [Consensus Decision-Making via Voting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making#Decision_rules)<ul></ul> [Roberts Rules of Order: Parliamentary procedure.](http://www.rulesonline.com/)<ul>A quote from the ether: "Robert's Rules are what make town hall meetings so boring." But there are clear ways to form a new proposal and present it to the group, and it would be helpful to have a widely known American standard. However, Public Lab is an international community.</ul> [Spokes Council Model](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spokescouncil)<ul>Good pic at Used by the Occupy movement--[good pic here](http://www.occupylv.org/spokes-council-organizing-affinity-groups). Representatives from Working Groups (or Affinity Groups) meet in a Spokes Council. Does not presume a particular decision making method for the Spokes Council -- it could be consensus, voting, whatever.</ul> [Sociocracy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociocracy)<ul>_Consensus processes like Quakers. However, if the group can't reach a decision, a smaller group (say, 5 or 6 out a a group of 40) would be delegated to reach a decision. (yes this is a reference from Mathew Lippincott). _</ul> **Summary of Statement-Based Process (current method)**<ul>* Members may present public statements, motions, or open letters and encourage others to sign them, as is sometimes done by university faculties * Members may then say "x % of organizers signed a statement that ..." or "the undersigned ..." * Very difficult to reach 100%; most statements will presumably be signed by a [possibly small] subset of organizers Pros:* nobody may speak for anyone else without their signed affirmation * anyone may write a statement and circulate it for support at any time; minimal "process" * no veto; dissenting members cannot stop others from writing or signing statements Cons:* essentially nonbinding: a statement does not speak for the Organizers group as a body unless it has 100% of its membership signed </ul> **Summary of Voting Process (a proposed method)**<ul>* Would require us to pick a threshold for binding agreement. 75% has been suggested. There is also strong support for 90% from organizers experienced with concensus. * If X% of organizers vote for a motion, it is adopted by the Organizers group * Equivalent to >(100-X)% must vote against *or simply not vote* to block * Members asked to respect the outcome of the vote -- but may of course voice dissent personally, i.e. "I voted against it, but agree to abide by it."</ul> [The Union system, as established by the International Worker's Association](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workers%27_Association#Organization)<ul>If you wanted to push a change to the overall organization, you'd first put it first through your "Local," Local Union, or possibly even chapter--[Mondragon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation) in Spain is a famous example.</ul> ###Types of Facilitation [The World Cafe Method](http://www.theworldcafe.com/key-concepts-resources/world-cafe-method/) ###Handbooks **Come Hell or High Water: A Handbook on Collective Process Gone Awry**<ul> Book published by AK Press. http://www.akpress.org/comehellorhighwater.html <br>"Helps individuals navigate the world of egalitarian, directly democratic groups. From their experiences working with egalitarian and anarchist organizations, Delfina Vannucci and Richard Singer offer a street-level view of how social relationships and power work"</ul> ###Online Discussion/Decision Making Platforms:<ul> <li>http://loomio.org/</li> <li>https://pol.is/</li> <li>http://www.discourse.org/</li> </ul> ##[Guidelines](http://publiclab.org/wiki/mailing-lists#Guidelines) <p>Please treat our mailing lists as a place of respectful conversation. Our lists have moderators to ensure civility. Moderators review the posts of all new members before approving them to post automatically. Some existing members may be placed into moderation if their posting pattern changes such that it violates our list guidelines (see below):</p> <strong>When posting to Public Lab lists:</strong><br> <ul class="list-unstyled"> 1. Stay on topic<br><ul> <li>stay on topic to make long threads easier to follow</li> <li>if you diverge from the main thread/topic/subject, consider breaking off into a new thread/topic/subject to help others follow along</li> <li>avoid sending one-line spurious responses that effectively "spam" hundreds of people and lowers the overall content quality of a conversation</li></ul> 2. Mind your tone<br><ul> <li>since we are in a conversation in email form, maintaining a tone of respect is essential. Any of the following can result in a member having their posts moderated before going out to the whole list: aggressive tone, disrespectful tone, mocking tone, off-color tone</li> <li>a note on humor: expressing ourselves online in text is different from expressing ourselves in person by talking</li></ul> Before you are placed into moderation, you will be notified on the pertinent list. **References:**<ul> <li>[OSM Etiquette](http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Etiquette">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Etiquette)</li> <li>[OSM Community Code of Conduct](http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Community_Code_of_Conduct_(Draft)</li> <li>[Humanitarian OSM Code](https://hackpad.com/HOT-Code-1X2acHIN2HX)</li></ul> <h3>Rough Ideas</h3> <p>Flat leadership can be great for innovation and interaction. However, some events may be controversial and require mediators and facilitators to provide a forum for reaching consensus.</p> <p>Consensus is desired, but may not be obtained. What will be our process then? How will we voice dissenting views? <br>Many other methods exist for approaching difficult decisons. Could we approach consensus by region, mailing group, organizers, Robert's Rules of Order, etc.? </p>

Learn more »