Editing Consensus decision-making (section)

==Process models==
The basic model for achieving consensus as defined by any decision rule involves:
*Collaboratively generating a proposal
*Identifying unsatisfied concerns
*Modifying the proposal to generate as much agreement as possible

All attempts at achieving consensus begin with a good faith attempt at generating full-agreement, regardless of decision rule threshold.

===Spokescouncil===
In the ''spokescouncil'' model, [[affinity groups]] make joint decisions by each designating a speaker and sitting behind that circle of spokespeople, akin to the [[spoke]]s of a wheel. While speaking rights might be limited to each group's designee, the meeting may allot breakout time for the constituent groups to discuss an issue and return to the circle via their spokesperson. In the case of an activist spokescouncil preparing for the [[Washington A16, 2000|A16 Washington D.C. protests in 2000]], affinity groups disputed their spokescouncil's imposition of nonviolence in their action guidelines. They received the reprieve of letting groups self-organize their protests, and as the city's protest was subsequently divided into pie slices, each blockaded by an affinity group's choice of protest. Many of the participants learned about the spokescouncil model on the fly by participating in it directly, and came to better understand their planned action by hearing others' concerns and voicing their own.<ref name="HaworthElmore2017">{{cite book|last1=Jeppesen|first1=Sandra|last2=Adamiak|first2=Joanna|chapter=Street Theory: Grassroots Activist Interventions in Regimes of Knowledge|editor-last1=Haworth|editor-first1=Robert H.|editor-last2=Elmore|editor-first2=John M.|title=Out of the Ruins: The Emergence of Radical Informal Learning Spaces|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=S7ZHEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT291|year=2017|publisher=PM Press|isbn=978-1-62963-319-0|page=291}}</ref>

=== Modified Borda Count vote ===
In ''Designing an All-Inclusive Democracy'' (2007), Emerson proposes a consensus oriented approach based on the [[Modified Borda Count]] (MBC) voting method. The group first elects, say, three referees or consensors. The debate on the chosen problem is initiated by the facilitator calling for proposals. Every proposed option is accepted if the referees decide it is relevant and conforms with the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]]. The referees produce and display a list of these options. The debate proceeds, with queries, comments, criticisms and/or even new options. If the debate fails to come to a verbal consensus, the referees draw up a final list of options - usually between 4 and 6 - to represent the debate. When all agree, the chair calls for a preferential vote, as per the rules for a Modified Borda Count. The referees decide which option, or which composite of the two leading options, is the outcome. If its level of support surpasses a minimum consensus coefficient, it may be adopted.<ref name=":3">{{Cite book|title=Designing an all-inclusive democracy : consensual voting procedures for use in parliaments, councils and committees|date=2007|publisher=Springer|last=Emerson|first=Peter J.|isbn=9783540331643|location=Berlin|oclc=184986280}}</ref><ref name=":4">{{Cite web|url=http://www.deborda.org/faq/voting-systems/what-is-a-modified-borda-count.html|title=What is a modified Borda count?|website=The de Borda Institute|language=en|access-date=28 June 2019|archive-date=28 July 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200728194912/http://www.deborda.org/faq/voting-systems/what-is-a-modified-borda-count.html|url-status=dead}}</ref>

===Blocking===
[[File:Consensus flow chart.svg|thumb|250px|right|Flowchart of basic consensus decision-making process]]

Groups that require unanimity commonly use a core set of procedures depicted in this flow chart.<ref>{{cite web| url =  http://www.consensusdecisionmaking.org/ | title = The Basics of Consensus Decision Making | access-date = 17 February 2015 | date = 17 February 2015 | work = Consensus Decision Making | publisher =  ConsensusDecisionMaking.org }}</ref><ref>{{cite book|url=http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/c-t-butler-and-amy-rothstein-on-conflict-and-consensus-a-handbook-on-formal-consensus-decisionm |title=What is Consensus? |access-date=17 January 2007 |year=2005 |publisher=The Common Place |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061015105352/http://www.thecommonplace.org.uk/information.php?page=articles&iID=4 |archive-date=15 October 2006 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite web| url =  http://seedsforchange.org.uk/free/consens#proc | title = The Process | access-date = 17 January 2007 | date = 1 December 2005 | work = Consensus Decision Making | publisher =  Seeds for Change }}</ref>

Once an agenda for discussion has been set and, optionally, the ground rules for the meeting have been agreed upon, each item of the agenda is addressed in turn. Typically, each decision arising from an agenda item follows through a simple structure:
*''Discussion of the item'': The item is discussed with the goal of identifying opinions and information on the topic at hand. The general direction of the group and potential proposals for action are often identified during the discussion.
*''Formation of a proposal'': Based on the discussion a formal decision proposal on the issue is presented to the group.
*''Call for consensus'': The facilitator of the decision-making body calls for consensus on the proposal. Each member of the group usually must actively state whether they agree or consent, stand aside, or object, often by using a hand gesture or raising a colored card, to avoid the group [[Warnock's dilemma|interpreting silence or inaction as agreement]].  The number of objections is counted to determine if this step's consent threshold is satisfied.  If it is, dissenters are asked to share their concerns with proceeding with the agreement, so that any potential harms can be addressed/minimized. This can happen even if the consent threshold is unanimity, especially if many voters stand aside.
*''Identification and addressing of concerns'': If consensus is not achieved, each dissenter presents his or her concerns on the proposal, potentially starting another round of discussion to address or clarify the concern.
*''Modification of the proposal'': The proposal is amended, re-phrased or [[Rider (legislation)|ridered]] in an attempt to address the concerns of the decision-makers. The process then returns to the call for consensus and the cycle is repeated until a satisfactory decision passes the consent threshold for the group.

===Quaker-based model===
[[Quaker]]-based consensus<ref name = "Quaker">{{cite web|url=http://legacy.earlham.edu/~consense/rrocomp.shtml/ |title=A Comparison of Quaker-based Consensus and Robert's Rules of Order. |access-date=1 March 2009 | work=Quaker Foundations of Leadership, 1999 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111020045822/http://legacy.earlham.edu/~consense/rrocomp.shtml/ |archive-date=20 October 2011 }}</ref> is said to be effective because it puts in place a simple, time-tested structure that moves a group towards unity.  The Quaker model is intended to allow hearing individual voices while providing a mechanism for dealing with disagreements.<ref name="Quaker group facilitator">{{Cite book|last=Bressen|first=Tree|title=Change Handbook|year=2006|chapter=16. Consensus Decision Making|chapter-url=https://treegroup.info/library/Consensus_Decison_Making-CH.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141026104336/http://global-4-lvs-colossus.opera-mini.net/hs23-05-08/20696/0/-1/treegroup.info/651578982/Consensus_Decison_Making-CH.pdf|archive-date=26 October 2014|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Berry |first1=Fran |last2=Snyder |first2=Monteze |title=Notes prepared for Round table: Teaching Consensus-building in the Classroom |url=http://www.earlham.edu/~consense/pateach.shtml |publisher=Quaker Foundations of Leadership, 1999 |access-date=1 March 2009 |ref=Berry |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081011161036/http://www.earlham.edu/~consense/pateach.shtml |archive-date=11 October 2008 |language=en |date=1998 |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Woodrow|first=Peter|date=1999|title=BUILDING CONSENSUS AMONG MULTIPLE PARTIES: The Experience of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission|url=http://www.earlham.edu/~consense/peterw.shtml|journal=Program in Quaker Foundations of Leadership|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080828213829/http://www.earlham.edu/~consense/peterw.shtml|archive-date=28 August 2008}}</ref>

The Quaker model has been adapted by [[Earlham College]] for application to secular settings, and can be effectively applied in any consensus decision-making process.

Its process includes:
<!--NOTE: THIS IS NOT THE FORM USED BY THE RELIGIOUS SOCIETY OF FRIENDS, but rather an ADAPTATION by Earlham College that has been widely used in secular settings. The text is a paraphrase of SOURCED material, so please do not modify it beyond its original intent. -->
*Multiple concerns and information are shared until the sense of the group is clear.
*Discussion involves [[active listening]] and sharing information.
*Norms limit number of times one asks to speak to ensure that each speaker is fully heard.
*Ideas and solutions belong to the group; no names are recorded.
*Ideally, differences are resolved by discussion. The [[facilitator]] ("clerk" or "convenor" in the Quaker model) identifies areas of agreement and names disagreements to push discussion deeper.
*The facilitator articulates the sense of the discussion, asks if there are other concerns, and proposes a "[[Minutes|minute]]" of the decision.
*The group as a whole is responsible for the decision and the decision belongs to the group.
*The facilitator can discern if one who is not uniting with the decision is acting without concern for the group or in selfish interest.
*Ideally, all dissenters' perspectives are synthesized into the final outcome for a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.<ref name = Quaker/>
*Should some dissenter's perspective not harmonize with the others, that dissenter may "stand aside" to allow the group to proceed, or may opt to "block". "Standing aside" implies a certain form of silent consent. Some groups allow "blocking" by even a single individual to halt or postpone the entire process.<ref name="Quaker group facilitator"/>

Key components of Quaker-based consensus include a belief in a common [[Human condition|humanity]] and the ability to decide together. The goal is "unity, not unanimity."  Ensuring that group members speak only once until others are heard encourages a diversity of thought. The facilitator is understood as serving the group rather than acting as person-in-charge.<ref>{{cite web |title=Our Distinctive Approach |publisher=Quaker Foundations of Leadership, 1999 |url=http://legacy.earlham.edu/~consense/distfea.shtml/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111020062953/http://legacy.earlham.edu/~consense/distfea.shtml/ |access-date=1 March 2009 |archive-date=20 October 2011 |url-status=dead}}</ref> In the Quaker model, as with other consensus decision-making processes, articulating the emerging consensus allows members to be clear on the decision in front of them.  As members' views are taken into account they are likely to support it.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Public Policy Consensus & Mediation: State of Maine Best Practices - What is a Consensus Process?|url=http://www.maine.gov/consensus/ppcm_consensus_home.htm|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081212233409/http://www.maine.gov/consensus/ppcm_consensus_home.htm|archive-date=12 December 2008|website=Maine.gov}}</ref>