Back

So, the comments seem to have stopped. I wonder if it makes sense to stick with the original deadline of Feb 26, or just put together a revised proposal now and open a round of voting so we can practice objecting and determining which objections are valid in this framework.

Again the purpose is both a) to think about adopting integrative consent and b) to practice the integrative consent process.

@mike_hales @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin @johnkuti

@Matt_Noyes 1of3
Responding here not loomio so as to be more lightweight. I find I don’t have much enthusiasm for formal group ‘democratic’ process. I’m happy to be guided thro by a skilled facilitator with goodwill, but have reluctance to internalise and be bound by formal group process of any kind, for any purpose. That’s just temperament - not a large group person, a pair or trio person, responding to actual dynamics of that actual pairing.
@michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin @johnkuti

@mike_hales @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin @johnkuti @SocialCoop

So it turns out that splitting the conversation into two threads, one on Loomio and one on Mastodon, makes it more difficult to document the process and respond to the concerns. Because you have to work through two threads and because the thread on Mastodon broadened beyond the original proposal. So, it seems that good practice is for discussions of proposals made on Loomio to be carried out on Loomio.

@Matt_Noyes
I broke out of Loomio into Mastodon bcos I wanted to be more informal, to chat and extend rather than to DEBATE in a formal polis/demos, formal for/against kind of way. I guess I don’t believe in binding decisions (as distinct from straw polls), certainly, not in loosely bonded collectives. And don’t wish to contribute to expectations of that kind of process. So here I am, in Mastodon
@michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin @johnkuti @SocialCoop

@mike_hales @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @anaulin @johnkuti @SocialCoop

2/2

The integrative approach is not intended to be a formal yes/no debate, nor is it intended to generate decisions that are binding on members who oppose them. It is about arriving - or not - at consent so that members can take initiative.

So my model proposal may not be a great example, since it suggested some kind of "thou shalt" imposed on SC, instead of an "I'd like to." (The amended proposal does not do that.)

@Matt_Noyes @mike_hales @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @johnkuti @SocialCoop This aligns with what I've experienced with IDM in my workplace: it is less conducive to deep / wide conversation, and instead focuses the interaction around some action or decision that the proposer wants to get consent for.

(In the context of my workplace, "consent" seems like a weird euphemism for "permission", but that's another conversation.)

@anaulin @mike_hales @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @johnkuti @SocialCoop

Your workplace experience of this is really interesting. Assuming your workplace is not democratically organized, it seems like IDM could be problematic. Consensus and consent without equal standing become something like soft coercion and seeking permission?

@Matt_Noyes @mike_hales @michaelafisher @Zee @mattcropp @johnkuti @SocialCoop Yep, I consider it somewhat problematic in my workplace. I sense that it was introduced as a way of being "biased to action" and to "encourage experimentation", but without much analysis of power dynamics. There's something in there also about wanting to "be efficient" and not wanting to have long consensus-seeking conversations.

(Scare quotes brought to you by my exhaustion with corporate speak.)