Systemic consensus (herein SysCon) is a decision making process that takes a question as an input and gives a decision as an output. It was initially conceived of by Erich Visotschnig and Siegfried Schrotta in 2001, two ex-IBM system analysts from Austria.^[website]

A key feature is the use of scalar, resistance voting: in contrast to the divisive plurality vote where people are often dragged into outcomes they didn't want, the resistance vote promotes collaboration by selecting the outcome most people can live with.^[details] SysCon can occur in a number of formats, including mini (offline), full (offline) and online - all of which contain the same fundamental phases described below.

This form of decision making is not familiar to most people and requires practice to become comfortable with.

Contents

The question

As the input for an intensive process, it is important to form questions as best possible. questions should be clear & open and made with self-awareness & research. More on forming questions in Question forming guidance.

Participation self-selection

Contributors decide for themselves if and how they will take part in a systemic consensus by reflecting on the questions;

on We aim to find a balance of who makes decisions

Democracy: everyone has a say.
'Do-ocracy': those doing the work
Meritocracy:

It is important to get the right people to vote: with the division of labor in yunity we aim to strike a balance between complete direct democracy of all contributors, active individuals having agency on their work ('do-ocracy') and people with expert knowledge being able to decide (meritocracy). We don't restrict access to decisions, but value the self-determination of contributors by trusting them to self-select their level of participation in the systemic consensus cycle.

The systemic consensus process

Express needs, wants and values

Individuals express their feelings towards the question.

This safe space for personal, emotional expression provides a connection between participants: This is important because the whole process is emotionally quite 'cold' and deliberately avoids discussion. 'Needs, wants and values' should just reflect how people feel about the question with proposals withheld for the next stage in the process

Form proposals

Individuals form proposals to answer the question.

All proposals are included in the ballot, though considering the needs, wants and values of the group and the Proposal forming guidance will help form proposals that are less likely to meet resistance.

In addition to proposals from individuals, two control proposals are always included;

Zero option: We keep everything as it is and change nothing. This should include a description of 'how everything currently is' before the vote begins.
Further solutions: We look for other solutions. The cycle restarts on the same question: participants express NWVs, form proposals then vote again.

Vote

Individuals vote against each proposal with a resistance rating.

The vote is a multi-choice, resistance rating: voters rate each proposal with how much they resist that option being selected. The scale starts at zero which expresses the absence of resistance, the maximum value of the scale expresses maximum resistance.

What if two proposals have equally the lowest resistance?

Just those proposals are immediately re-voted on.

The proposal with the lowest net resistance is selected. If 'Further solutions' is selected, the cycle restarts, otherwise the cycle stops. If the 'Zero option' is selected, then no action is taken.

Systemic consensus [main article rewrite]