How Decisions Are Made
We make decisions sociocratically, by consent, either in a meeting or on Twist. This page is the operational process: how consent works once a co-op decision is needed.
Written proposals on Twist are usually the last mile of a longer path — mandate, strategy, members’ discussion, or RA reflection. For where a decision belongs before it becomes a proposal, see Democracy, autonomy and trust. For synchronous facilitation (rounds, check-in, roles), see How we run meetings.
Consent, not consensus
Decisions are made by consent, not consensus. The bar for consenting is that a proposal is “good enough for now and safe enough to try”.
Any member can propose something to the rest of the group. Other members can:
- Ask for clarifications
- Suggest amendments
- Give consent, or block the proposal
When not giving consent, members must give their reasons. A block is about a reasoned objection that the proposal is not safe enough or not good enough to try — not a preference for a different option.
This method recognises that most decisions aren’t permanent, and optimises for efficiency and iteration over unanimous enthusiasm. It trusts people to make decisions that impact the collective, without requiring everyone to be deeply involved in and supportive of every decision.
Moving from freeform discussion to a concrete proposal clarifies what needs to be done next and who is responsible. Regular meetings are good for synchronous proposal discussion; smaller decisions made in meetings should be noted in minutes, Notion, or Twist for posterity and for absent members. More formal decisions should be logged on Twist.
When a proposal is needed
Guidance on whether a co-op consent decision is needed — versus acting inside a steward mandate or settling something in a meeting first — lives in Democracy, autonomy and trust.
The rules below describe how consent works in practice, asynchronously, on Twist.
Proposals
Proposals can be added to the Proposals channel in Twist.
The first message on the thread should always contain the version of the proposal on which consent is sought.
Time limits
By default, decisions have a seven-day time limit, measured from the time the proposal is posted on Twist.
- If all members consent to a decision, it passes. Regardless of whether the time limit has been reached.
- If members don't reply to a decision by the time limit, it passes.
Members can set a shorter time limit if they wish. However, any member can object to a shortened time limit and extend it. Preferably a time limit should not be less than 24 hours.
A time limit longer than seven days cannot be set, though members can always extend decision-making time by not consenting to the decision.
If a decision is of high consequence and on a shortened timeline, the proposer needs to actively solicit the views of all members.
When a decision takes effect
Every proposal has a deadline, or an implicit deadline of seven days. Once that deadline passes and the proposal has been consented to, it is implemented as soon as possible from that point. For example, if a proposal's deadline is 17:00 on Thursday 21st of May, the policy takes effect on that date and is implemented as soon as is practical.
A proposal can propose its own implementation date, which overrides this default.
Members on leave
If members are on leave and the decision is significant, or existential, then best efforts must be made to contact them. Otherwise:
- If a member is away or on holiday, they can specify certain classes of decision they want to be asked about. This needs to be explicit, and the default should be that other members are trusted to make most decisions in their absence.
- If a member is ill, similarly, they can specify (as a general rule) certain classes of decision they want to be contacted about. This needs to be explicit.
Members can decide to try and reverse a decision when they return to work by making a counter-proposal.
Participation and consent
Non-members are welcome to participate, but their consent is purely indicative. There are two exceptions. The first is where the decision concerns them, along the lines of the phrase "no decision about me, without me". The second is where the proposer proposes to widen the scope of decision-making to include non-members, and members consent to this.
Members can ask clarifying questions, as per the standard sociocratic rounds.
For proposals that do not achieve consent, the proposer can work out an alternative proposal and re-propose it, or set the proposal aside.
The minimum number of members who can make any decision is two.