2016-03-26 - Quick Systemic Consensus

Minutes

(quick) syscon has the same focus areas as the concept of nonviolent communication

• no pressure
• focus on needs
• strategy diversity

we cannot force a good solution if we deal with an incompetent group.
facilitators will probably face escalation while working with a group using this new process. and that is something perfectly normal and to be expected, so the facilitator needs to be able to stay calm and keep the atmosphere productive nonetheless. stll, some people need to express their doubts conerning details they encounter in the process and they should be able to figure out for themselves where the limits to them taking up room to do so lay. if it doesn't happen after a reasonable amount of time, the facilitator can point out to them, that they may have lost track of the bigger picture and may have forgotten about their surroundings and the goal they are actually pursueing, to make them realize that the emotions they are facing now have basically nothing to do with the decision making at hand but with different underlying issues.

quick syscon
identification of different items is very important:

• infos
• questions
• framework infos (christmasparty tabledance example)
• proposals

a group can not make decisions about an individual! noone can be forced to do something through syscon!

first simply ask if there is resistance, and if there is none just go ahead!
"somebody against me opening the window?" - silence - *opening window*
but if there is resistance to any option qsyscon can be a good idea:
"somebody against me opening the window?" - "yes, it's already cold!" *initiate qsyscon*
OR
"somebody against me opening the window?" - "yes, it's already cold!" - "please do it, it stinks in here!" *initiate qsyscon*

quick example on question "open the window?"
voting by hand signs: 0 resistance, 1 resistance, 2 resistance

• open the window! 8
• window stays closed 0
• open the door 4
• open window for 5mins 5
• open window in 10mins 10

consent = absense of resistance is reached!
consent = active agreement can then be reached through the verification question "how much do you like that the window stays closed?"
hand signs: 0 agreement, 1 agreement, 2 agreement

if it was decided to open the window, these further questions could lead to escalation:

• who is gonna open the window?
• when is it okay to close it again?

layerbuilding: we can only answer the main question after answering to another one that directly incluences the main one.

what happens when differet logical approaches collide?
example: we need to decide the when before the who vs. the other way around
ways out:

• very complex proposals that contain the whole process of doing something
• make a syscon on the question which approach to choose
• zero solution: infinite regress in the form of endless discussion
• further solutions

if the escalation grows like crazy an escalation break can be proposed, meaning that no new layers (new questions, that need to be answered before the group can decide on the questions that came up before to then finally handle the initial question) can be added for a set period of time, if accepted.

decisions made in qsyscon are binding for the session, they are not only for gathering opinions on a subject! they shouldn't be reopenend if no new info or input appears!

every proposal needs to be clear and legal in the framework!

as soon as people are really used to the process even a fast quick syscon is possible. in that case the framework wouldn't need to be displayed as obviously. but this will happen kind of automatically when thinking about resistance vote and using it more, just like now people normally use majority votes intuitively.

group needs vs. personal needs will be addressed in upcoming talks and workshops held by joachim. for now just this: really urgent decisions are never fit for syscons: if someone suffocates you just open the window. sometimes autonomous decisions are best for the whole group: a car is always steered by one person, because it just makes sense for safety reasons.

process proposals which open new layers always go first! even if they come up while a proposal making phase is already halfway through, new layers can be opened which then need to be addressed first! if this goes out of hand an escalation break can be useful so that the multilayered onion of stacked questions doesn't grow infinitely.

does the facilitator need to be an expert on the subject?
- no, (s)he only has to be an expert on the process to activate the group intelligence
does the facilitator need to take care that all relevant information is available?
- yes, but not by providing it him/herself directly but by asking if every piece of information is actually on the table

test quick syscons
1) how do we deal with the outcome of the structure values syscon?

• just take it, even though partcipation was low
• reopen the process (led to a new question and added a layer -> 2)

2) what is the maximum number of syscons allowed to run at the same time?

• 4 of any kind
• 3 structure ones but others don't count
• 3 structure ones, max 1 starts per day, others don't count

then the fire alarm started and terminated our meeting... -.-