Brief and incomplete Critique of Robert’s Rules:
Some problems with Robert’s Rules–and modified versions thereof– are that they are overly complex and reduce deliberation to an “in favor of” and “opposed to” model with a rigid amendment process that can inhibit meaningful discussion and comprehension of potential proposals prior to decision making. Rather than extrapolating about many possibilities, inquiries, amendments, dissenting ideas, partial alternatives, etc. all at once, modified versions of Robert’s rules force an overly atomistic kind of conversation style where people only deal with one part of what should be a fuller conversation at a time. Now of course a dialogue can start with and be about specific proposals and ideas. But from there, dialogue should be about the broad function of the proposal at hand as well as the specific proposal. This can include dialogue about if the functions of proposals are even ones worth aiming towards and can also include dialogue about better ways to go about arriving at specific functions (or other things to consider). If dialogue needs to happen about many different dimensions of a proposal, then people should elaborate before interpolating. Through discussion alone, the conversation will often narrow in on one or a few proposals that obviously seem to be the best to people. Discussion that allows people to extrapolate about possibilities in a whole general conversation about what to do in relation to a specific proposal or function allows people to be more informed by possibilities before making a decision.
Brief and Incomplete Critique of Unanimous Thresholds:
Some problems with unanimous thresholds are that they inhibit dissent and disagreement and enable any one person to veto collective decisions. This gives every person too much power over collective actions. Unanimous thresholds can ossify a group by inhibiting novel proposals and dissent. One argument in favor of unanimous thresholds is that they alone are based on free relations between people. However, upon closer examination this is false. Free agreement between collectives and persons can exist without unanimous agreement. Within good organizations, there are minimal terms of practice that are against decisions that will form ruling class or a ruling strata or otherwise arbitrarily limit people’s freedom. Decisions made by collectives would be within such limits. If organizations do form hierarchical rule or arbitrary rule, then people should of course be able to oppose such hierarchical and arbitrary limits through direct action. When it comes to collective decisions, individuals should be able to express dissent, propose different proposals, re-appeal proposals, educate people about their ideas, not participate in the implementation of a specific policy they disagree with, freely disassociate from an organization and/or make their own decisions in the world that do not inhibit collective and individual decisions within a good realm of permissibility (that would be sketched out as positive and negative freedoms within a libertarian socialist by laws and bill of rights).
Brief and incomplete thoughts on deliberation processes:
We need a decision making process that is deliberative, based in cooperative conflict, and that can ultimately resolve in a decision when consensus is not reached. We also need a decision making process that is transparent and comprehensible to those using it as well as the right scale of meetings so as to allow everyone to participate meaningfully (there are ways to decentralize the assembly–or an assembly of assemblies– into groups and then report back general agreements of groups and individual dissent to a larger group after break outs for swift communication for larger assemblies). We also need to adapt such processes to different contexts as relevant variables emerge.
Deliberative cooperative conflict aiming towards consensus–without unanimity as a threshold– can easily fall back to–and is compatible with– dissent and simple majority when there is not consensus. This can be combined with ethical points of unity, positive freedoms, and negative freedoms for collectives and persons to glue differences together–especially if such points of unity and freedoms are sufficiently coherent and meaningfully shared among participants. If worse comes to worse collectives and individuals can leave collectives they are apart of or let larger bodies know that a decision is a deal-breaker for them if a decision happens (and such free association–unlike right wing free association– should not mean the right to inhibit what should be guaranteed freedoms of other collectives and persons).
Assemblies should be able to experiment and adapt within certain ethical bounds. For example, assemblies could mandate and recall various permissible processes through stack and simple majority–such as open dialogue with no stack for a set amount of time, dialogue between a few people for a set amount of time, passing around the conversation in a circle once or twice, break out groups, 2/3rds decision making, trial votes, rotating speaking between people in favor of and opposed to a proposal, etc. (1). A degree of process about process is needed for the assembly to remain democratic, but participants and facilitators should be wary of getting bogged down in unproductive process wormholes and find deliberative yet swift and comprehensible ways to resolve such issues. A degree of patience on the part of members is important during such a process.
Cited Work:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/critical-thoughts-on-consensus-decision-making
Influenced by Murray Bookchin
Some good and basic essays on organizing meetings and decision making:
https://libcom.org/organise/organise-facilitate-meetings-effectively
https://libcom.org/organise/decision-making-organisational-form
The New Municipal Agenda 