<aside>
💡 Consent differs from consensus in that everyone doesn't have to agree — the goal, rather, is that no one objects. In the end, we will agree as a community the decision is safe to try.
</aside>
CloverPop is the tool we will use to make decisions related to politicians' involvement with SWMA. It will allow decision-makers to express their "zone of tolerance" by using a simple scale of 1 through 10 where 1 is a resounding "no, I do not agree" and 10 is an absolute "yes, I agree" with the question/s at hand. For our purposes, we will be moving forward with a decision if all deciders rate their preference at 7 and above. In this sense, 7-10 is a "zone of tolerance" that people can live with.
https://medium.com/@ShaneMurarenko
Like with consensus, it is important that if you do not completely agree and rate your agreement between 0-9, then you provide an alternative solution in the comments that builds on what is already there to transform it into something you completely agree with. If you do not have an alternative solution, you should step aside and not participate.
Decision making in community is a deeply iterative and carefully considered process — it is not for passive participants. We can use the threads CloverPop generates in Slack to ask any clarifying questions prior to finalizing our ratings for each question.
In CloverPop, we will be inserting policy questions and a little background on the discussion and history of a particular scenario in our community, and what lead to this phrasing.
I will copy and paste one of the questions once Emily puts it into CloverPop.
When buy-in isn't at 100% (full consensus), all comments (regardless of rating) are vital and should be integrated in good faith into a final policy in which no one objects. Objection is a rating of 0-6 and will cause the process of ratifying the question to restart, integrating the comments and concerns raised through the process. The zone of tolerance is 7-10, which signifies you agree the process should move forward, perhaps with minor tinkering. The primary goal here is the "harvesting of objection" through the comment system -- this is where we can better clarify or abstract concepts so that everybody can agree in the end that the language of the policy is safe to try.
Once all objections have been addressed and no objections remain, the proposal becomes accepted and will be captured by a small committee to be written up and recorded on Notion, and distributed through our networks.
Ping Victoria Costa on Slack if you have any questions!