Quick SysCon starts with a certain topic and normally with a direct proposal (or a question followed by a proposal). As soon as the proposal is properly identified and recognized as valid for the framework it is immediately checked for resistance "Is there any resistance to this proposal?". This is done by raising one hand.
(Emphasis added) |
Although other criteria could be used to initiate Quick Syscon (see below) the single hand raise has advantages:
Perhaps the lack of clarity in this authors (Douglas Webb) mind is the point at which resistance is checked for. I've recently looked at and been inspired by 'Robs Rules of Order'. This is a pretty old text for governing meetings which is steeped in formality. An interesting element is that almost every eventuality is demarcated with strict phraseology - specific things are done with specific phrases. This has advantage in that people quickly know where they are. With our use of Quick Syscon I would like to make it clear when a proposal is being made and that resistance should now be expressed. I suggest we adopt a convention of introducing proposals with "I propose we..."
In this way an idea can be explored and questions asked openly until a person makes a proposal starting with "I propose we...". Understanding this convention will lead to investigative dialogue seeking towards resistance-freedom before a proposal is made - in the case where a resistance-free solution is in the room, it may be quickly found. Individuals will learn that "I propose we..." is the initiation to Quick Syscon and that it helps to clearly state a full proposal if it is to be immediately accepted. Suggesting an idea would be simply regarded as dialogue, however, if an individual has forgotten the "I propose we..." convention but seems to be actually making a proposal, any member can prompt them with the question "Are you making a proposal?". Individuals who feel like investigative dialogue is going nowhere can exit this space by making a proposal.
The /wiki/spaces/YUN/pages/50069579 where Martin and Raphael announced their intention to split off from yunity in Kirchheim 2016-08-07. There was no clear agenda, no clear process, no agreed facilitator, no agreed time-frame and not everyone trained or understanding of (Quick) Syscon Consensus. At some point Lars proposed a break, the formation of an agenda and then returning to the meeting: after 90 minutes into the meeting and there was still no clear line of conversation and a lot of talking in circles. Some people expressed resistance to his proposal and vague proposals were suggested... Joachim suggested to use Quick Syscon to reach a conclusion. This process proposal was met with some resistance but no better suggestions were brought forward. Joachim had to explain how the process worked to some people who didn't know exactly how it worked and some proposals were amended several times: the length of time this took to some discontent in group, but a decision was reached about 15-20 minutes later with leading to a smoother second half.
Addressing any of the issues "No clear agenda, no clear process, no agreed facilitator, no agreed time-frame, not everyone trained or understanding (quick) systemic consensus." would have likely averted the length of the process towards to the process conclusion. Solutions could include:
Alternative initiation criteriaWith largely harmonious proposals, the voicing of a single issue and a quick amendment by the proposer can very quickly lead to a conclusion. As it stands, this scenario is not an option and the voicing of any resistance leads to the initiation to Quick Syscon. Whilst a well-trained and prepared group can use Quick Syscon very quickly, it is this authors opinion and experience (Douglas Webb by the way!) that it still takes a considerable amount of time. Are there better scenarios to lead to someone stepping up to implement a Quick Syscon?
|