Current initiation criterion

Proposed clarification of current initiation criterion

Although other criteria could be used to initiate Quick Syscon (see below) the single hand raise has advantages:

• Very simple.
• Does not require justification, so emotional and non-rational resistance are respected.
• Individuals able to express personally, no speculation required.

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.

Case

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.

Retroanalysis

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:

• Making it clear that arranging a meeting without conditions makes it an open space: Express intentions and process beforehand.
• Making it clear that if there is an agenda (and there often is), it is in everyone's best interest to see it.
• (Quick) Syscon training for all, especially people coming into yunity. Bite-sizing (e.g. just focusing on how to participate, understanding theory later) it such that anyone could train their buddy to understand the basics would remove single trainer bottlenecks.