Todd Davies
June 2016
Notes: The following is a process description I wrote for a multiracial activist group on which I served, and which was adopted on a trial basis as its official process document. It is based on consensus methods I have learned over the years in various groups. This document addresses primarily the formal aspects of consensus, and does not include guidelines for facilitators and others who fill process roles. See below (after the process description) for recommended additional readings.
Consensus comes in different varieties. Some practitioners view tests of consensus as a substitute for voting, and they do not believe that votes or anything that looks like them should be included in a consensus process. But the version of consensus we have agreed to includes voting as part of a larger process, that culminates in a test for consensus. In this version, we typically call votes "straw polls" or "temperature checks", to clarify that these do not constitute the decision of the group, but are preliminary to it. Straw polls are not binding on the group.
The process below is intended to make meetings go more smoothly, and not to make meetings unduly difficult to conduct. It is useful and sometimes necessary for all members to be more or less familiar with the elements of an agreed-on process. But optional elements and shortcuts may be taken when group members agree this is appropriate in a given context. The use of consensus terminology can be skipped when someone's intent is clear from context. But members may request clarification based on elements of the agreed process, or invoke a point of process (see below).
Consensus includes elements that are intended to help resolve conflicts in the group. The conflicts best resolved by consensus are not necessarily personal or behavioral conflicts, but rather are differences of opinion about courses of action. For example, some in the group think we should do X, and others think we should not do X. We can call these "simpler conflicts". Personal or behavioral conflicts are also addressed by elements of a consensus process, as well as by guidelines agreed to by the group. But personal and behavioral conflicts sometimes stem from a lack of agreed-on process for resolving simpler conflicts, so that under an agreed-on consensus process, some of those personal/behavioral conflicts may go away or be less likely.
Following an agreed-on process can help clarify where group members are with respect to a question or possible course of action. In groups that lack a defined process, members may agree or disagree with each other without some group members knowing exactly what others think, or with members not being on the same page about whether the group has agreed, or on what has been decided. Conflicts can sometimes arise, either during a meeting or later, when some or all group members are unclear about each other's views, whether an agreement has been reached, and if so what it is. A lack of process for clarifying this puts a heavier burden on the group's memory and/or on its note taker for remembering what the group has decided in the past. Expressed or unexpressed conflicts over this can sometimes escalate or otherwise keep the group from operating effectively.
Elements of consensus, which can be called on or invoked by group members at different times, depending on the facilitator and general practice of the group, include the following:
process: the set of practices that group members agree to in advance, supplemented by the practices of a facilitator and the group itself; these latter practices determine the details of how the process works in a particular meeting or context
process roles:
agenda drafter: set before the meeting; may be a standing role fulfilled by the president of the group or it may rotate within the group; this person posts a draft of the agenda (usually including proposed time limits) for possible modification by group members prior to the meeting
facilitator: conducts the meeting according to the agreed process, with some personal variations allowed within that agreement; usually rotated to different members from meeting to meeting, but it can be a standing role held by one person
note taker (alternative term: "scribe"): takes notes and distributes them for modification and approval by the next meeting; can be rotated or standing - our practice has been for the secretary to do this, with others substituting if the secretary is not present, but this can be modified by the group
timekeeper: keeps track of and lets the group know when time limits are up for each agenda item; usually a rotating role; group can agree to add time to an item if needed after time limit is reached
stack keeper (optional): keeps track of who is speaking next and calls on people; may be done by the facilitator (and usually is, in smaller groups)
vibes watcher: kind of a nor-cal thing; rotating role for person who monitors and tries to intervene on personal conflicts or behaviors that interfere with the process
proposal: a course of action the group could take, which requires everyone's agreement; adopted when the group reaches consensus (see below on "test for consensus")
discussion phase: period after proposal is made, prior to a test for consensus
stack: the order of speaking for group members during the discussion phase, which may be governed in different ways: raising hands, going around, talking pieces, free-for-all, etc., depending on the group or facilitator
contributions that can override the stack (with gestures to signal for attention or for recognition from the facilitator):
point of information (single index finger gesture, or an "I" index finger with circled fingers from the other hand held above it): brings a fact to the group's attention that is relevant to the proposal and that some group members might not know about
point of clarification (curled "C" finger gesture): question asked of a proposer to help clarify what is being proposed, or it may be volunteered by the proposer
point of process (curled finger held against index finger like a "P"): intervention to point out that agreed process is not being followed or process needs to be addressed in some way
direct response (forward motion with both hands, or a "D" index finger with curled fingers from the other hand held against it): direct answer to a point directed at the contributor or in direct reply to another member's contribution
contributions (on proposals) subject to the stack - any category may be expressed at any time during the discussion phase by a member during their turn; gestures may be made by members who are not on the stack; some gestures have ambiguous meanings, which the group can clarify by agreement:
support (thumb/s up, upward hands, or "twinkles" - fingers flittering): means "I like this proposal"
concern (expressions of hesitation, e.g. moving top of head from side to side; may also point thumb or hand sideways to indicate neutrality/unconvinced): means "I want to voice a concern, but am not really objecting at this point"
objection (thumb/s down, downward hands to indicate dislike): means "I am opposed to this unless someone can convince me otherwise" - basically a request for further discussion, and a warning that the member may stand aside or block if the objection is not addressed
stand aside (alternative term: "abstain"; thumb or hand pointed sideways, especially during a test for consensus): means "I cannot support this personally, but will not leave the group if it goes forward"
exit (alternative terms - "block” or "FTP"; unambiguous gesture is arms crossed like an "X"; thumb/s down or hands pointed downward, especially during a test for consensus): means "I will leave the group if this happens"
friendly amendment: expression of support for a proposal combined with a compatible modification or addition; this may be accepted by the proposer in a direct response
alternative proposal: a proposal that differs from and is a proposed substitute for a proposal under discussion; this can lead to multiple proposals being under discussion at the same time (unlike in Robert's Rules of Order)
synthesizing proposal: a proposal that attempts to synthesize multiple proposals into one, which becomes another alternative proposal to those already under discussion
withdrawn proposal: proposer takes their specific proposal out of discussion; this may happen as a direct response; if no other proposals are under discussion, the withdrawal can end the process without approval, or any member may make a new proposal; if a synthesizing proposal satisfies those who have put forward other proposals, those previous proposers should withdraw their proposals so that the synthesizing proposal is the only one under discussion
substitute proposal: combination of a withdrawn and an alternative or synthesizing proposal from an earlier proposer
request for a straw poll on one or more proposals (see below)
request for a test of consensus on one proposal (see below)
straw poll (alternative terms - "temperature check" or “nonbinding vote"): a poll to let all members know where the group stands on a proposal; this may precede a test for consensus during the discussion phase on a proposal, but is not mandatory; it does not end the discussion phase unless the group has otherwise agreed to do this
facilitator may choose to conduct a straw poll directly at any time or in response to a request from a member
straw poll should be done on all proposals under discussion
facilitator may ask for gestures of support regarding whether to do a straw poll
a straw poll is not the same as a test for consensus, and the procedure and gestures used for it should make this clear, e.g. by asking for a show of hands to indicate support for the proposal; an alternative is to ask for thumbs/hands up, sideways, or downward
a more elaborate form of straw poll is known as the "fist to five", a request for support on a zero to five scale: fist for 0 or no support, one finger for 1, and up to 5 fingers for full support
test for consensus: the final step required for approving a proposal; only applied to one proposal, which should be the only proposal under discussion when the test for consensus is made
facilitator may test for consensus at any time or in response to a request to test for consensus
facilitator should make sure the group is ready for a test of consensus; this may be done by asking if there are objections to testing for consensus
if any members object to testing for consensus, the facilitator may take a straw poll on whether to test for consensus
full test for consensus: facilitator asks members to raise their hands to indicate if they (in the following order) support, have concerns, have objections, stand aside, or want to block/exit; this effectively builds in a straw poll as part of the test of consensus, since members can see how many support the proposal as part of the decision
simple test for consensus: facilitator asks members to raise their hands to indicate if they (in the following order) object, are standing aside, or blocking/exiting
in either a full or simple test of consensus, the facilitator can stop prior to asking for blocks/exits, and ask members to explain where they stand on the proposal
supports or concerns usually do not merit further discussion in a test for consensus
objections or stand asides may lead to further discussion, at the discretion of the facilitator
any member may request further discussion during a test for consensus, based on their own or others' expressed concerns, objections, stand asides, or blocks
the facilitator may decide to extend discussion beyond the test for consensus, and may poll members to help decide whether to do this
if there are no blocks/exits, and no further discussion, the proposal is adopted