it's an engineering mindset - how will this fail, and how can i prevent it from failing in that way? as a design constraint always. i found it very difficult to start from the worst-case scenario and work backwards, when we all started here, not least becuase my mind mostly lives in a space of 'what you focus on, you will create' so i want to focus on the things i *want* to have happen, rather than the undesirable outcomes. but over time i've found the value of that approach. we've also gotten better at communicating around it, and at co-mingling those two approaches, in our conversations with each other.
Consensus Process is an actual thing! it's super formal and has all these rules. we use a modified form of it, rather than Formal Consensus, with formal consensus as our fallback in times of deep conflict, as it helps ensure every voice is fully heard.
actual consensus (which may not be what governmental bodies are practicing) is not a compromise; you shouldn't need to swallow much that you don't want to. unless you decide to compromise in your consensus building. but inherently these are different. in compromise, one or more parties give up bits of what they want until a decision is agreed on. in consensus, you keep changing the entire plan until it meets all needs. does this mean it took us 8 years to agree on how to fence our primary field? yes, yes, it does. but when we did, we were in 100% alignment on how & when & why and the details & execution of it. that's an extreme example; most things go lots faster. we were just weirdly slow on that one.
so the first step in doing a project by consensus, is a Needs Assessment. what does each person need from this? as completely as possible. every voice gets fully heard. this is a great tool for avoiding big conflict, tbh, because you hash it out in the design stage, when it's a conversation. then separate needs & wants, particularly if the needs assesment reveals divergent needs. because it might be that everybody can get what they *need*, but not what they *want.* but you try for it all, each time. then the person/committee doing the design/ project plan does that, trying to build in all the needs, and then brings this back to the gruop for discussion. it gets adjusted, then when the group feels that the plan takes everything into account, you/y'all execute it. of course nothing is perfect; there will be times something gets built/ exists and then somebody says "oh, wait, i just realized i need X out of this and it can't do it." and the group gets better at that process over time, you all learn how to be people who can predict your future selves well enough to say "i am going to need X." this grows over time and practice; it's a muscle.
you may want to look up Beatrice Briggs "Introduction to Consensus Process." that one for sure you can find online.
i turn out to have a pile of articles i could scan & email you. Consensus Basics by Tree Bressen, An introduction to Financial Development of Communities by Rob Sandelin & Lois Arkin, Six Ingredients for Forming COmmunities to help reduce conflict down the road, by Diana Leafe Christian (this content may be covered in her book), Community, Intentionally by Geoph Kozeny, Committing to Community for the Long Term, by Carolyn Shaffer.
none of those are recent - they're stuff i compiled when i was in the pre-SR planning stages, early 2000s. there's probably more recent work on the subject. and, recency may not be the most important consideration in its utility. anyway let me know and if you want any/all of these i can scan & email them to you. it's a paper folder.
no subject
Consensus Process is an actual thing! it's super formal and has all these rules. we use a modified form of it, rather than Formal Consensus, with formal consensus as our fallback in times of deep conflict, as it helps ensure every voice is fully heard.
actual consensus (which may not be what governmental bodies are practicing) is not a compromise; you shouldn't need to swallow much that you don't want to. unless you decide to compromise in your consensus building. but inherently these are different. in compromise, one or more parties give up bits of what they want until a decision is agreed on. in consensus, you keep changing the entire plan until it meets all needs. does this mean it took us 8 years to agree on how to fence our primary field? yes, yes, it does. but when we did, we were in 100% alignment on how & when & why and the details & execution of it. that's an extreme example; most things go lots faster. we were just weirdly slow on that one.
so the first step in doing a project by consensus, is a Needs Assessment. what does each person need from this? as completely as possible. every voice gets fully heard. this is a great tool for avoiding big conflict, tbh, because you hash it out in the design stage, when it's a conversation. then separate needs & wants, particularly if the needs assesment reveals divergent needs. because it might be that everybody can get what they *need*, but not what they *want.* but you try for it all, each time. then the person/committee doing the design/ project plan does that, trying to build in all the needs, and then brings this back to the gruop for discussion. it gets adjusted, then when the group feels that the plan takes everything into account, you/y'all execute it. of course nothing is perfect; there will be times something gets built/ exists and then somebody says "oh, wait, i just realized i need X out of this and it can't do it." and the group gets better at that process over time, you all learn how to be people who can predict your future selves well enough to say "i am going to need X." this grows over time and practice; it's a muscle.
you may want to look up Beatrice Briggs "Introduction to Consensus Process." that one for sure you can find online.
i turn out to have a pile of articles i could scan & email you. Consensus Basics by Tree Bressen, An introduction to Financial Development of Communities by Rob Sandelin & Lois Arkin, Six Ingredients for Forming COmmunities to help reduce conflict down the road, by Diana Leafe Christian (this content may be covered in her book), Community, Intentionally by Geoph Kozeny, Committing to Community for the Long Term, by Carolyn Shaffer.
none of those are recent - they're stuff i compiled when i was in the pre-SR planning stages, early 2000s. there's probably more recent work on the subject. and, recency may not be the most important consideration in its utility. anyway let me know and if you want any/all of these i can scan & email them to you. it's a paper folder.