Consensus With Large Groups

Consensus decision-making has been tested successfully with small groups and proven to be better than majority-rules at synthesizing various ideas, perspectives and concerns into superior decisions that everyone can support and come into cooperation with. This small-group consensus process can be done efficiently and scaled for the governance of large groups. Demonstrating effective consensus decision making with groups of 200+ people has the potential to change the way people look at collaborative thinking and consensus governance. We consider this an invaluable component of Highest Good society creation and this page outlines a structure for implementation and maintenance. The large-scale consensus governance structure presented here is adapted (with permission) from Jack Reed, the author of The Next Evolution. You can also visit our consensus decision making page for more small-group consensus specifics and the details of how One Community will phase in this model.

This page contains the following sections:

• Why Consensus Governance
• The Essence of the Consensus Model
• The Large-Scale Consensus Governance Structure
  • How Do We Reach Consensus
  • Functioning With Multiple Groups of 12
  • Highest Good Network for Consensus Governance
  • Consensus Governance With Groups
  • How the Groups Function Together
  • Focus Group Functions
  • Management
  • Administration
  • Decision-Making
  • Large-scale Consensus Governance Growth Points
  • Checks and Balances
• Summary
• FAQ

A note as you read this page: It is important to be aware that the ability and consciousness necessary to effectively do consensus is so much more than just meeting skills and the consensus protocols and techniques. Consensus at its core is about creating safety in communication. It is about Loving and realizing our collective oneness. Consensus is about having a consciousness that looks beyond our own perspective and cares for The Highest Good of All. By creating an atmosphere of safety, we can explore and resolve those issues both within ourselves and with others. When consensus is difficult to reach, it often points to unresolved matters within the group and one’s own self, as opposed to the actual discussion topic. The consensus training One Community offers is focused on this and, to our knowledge, unique in this respect and its depth with learning the overall process through this focus.

 

WHEN DONE WITH THIS PAGE, WE SUGGEST THESE ALSO

PHASING IN CONSENSUS GOVERNANCE | WHERE WE ARE NOW | TRAINING

 

CLICK THESE ICONS TO JOIN US THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA

WAYS TO PARTICIPATE WITH ONE COMMUNITY

SUGGESTIONS | CONSULTING | MEMBERSHIP | OTHER OPTIONS

 

WHY CONSENSUS GOVERNANCE

Consensus decision making has been tested successfully and shown to produce higher quality decisions than majority-rules decisions. Consensus involves synthesizing various ideas, perspectives and concerns into superior decisions that everyone can support, whereas with majority rules voting there are always winners and losers. In addition, those who disagree with a majority-rules decision, in practice, often do not comply or cooperate with the position or practice as much as they would if their objections or perspective were incorporated into the solution.

Consensus decision making is a process that allows a group, big or small, to have a direct role in ongoing decision-making and that produces better decisions. This involves and lifts everyone.

With everyone having input into the process, many might think that it would take too long to make decisions. While it’s true consensus may take longer initially, consensus ultimately saves time by arriving at much higher quality decisions. Making decisions like this virtually eliminates the process of continuously working to correct poor-quality decisions that didn’t include the needs of everyone and the environment. As people gain experience and trust in consensus, the process gets faster and faster without loss of quality.

Since members of One Community have a shared vision and values based on The Highest Good of All, there is a strong basis for consensus-style governance. For consensus governance to work, it is imperative that the Community be composed of people with a consciousness committed to The Highest Good of All, as opposed to the everyone-for-themselves mentality. The shift towards consciousness and commitment to The Highest Good of All is possible with the realization that there are enough resources to live abundantly. Additionally, consensus decision making places the power in the hands of individuals who embody enlightened self-interest. All contributions are respected and, in some form, incorporated into the final plan. The process of consensus is unfamiliar to most people and can feel like a process that parallels learning to walk for the first time. In the consensus governance model, everyone has a direct role in ongoing decision-making and therefore guiding the Community and how we live together.

 

LIFTING EVERYONE

Specifically exposing the myth that cooperation means compromising our own self-interests is part of One Community’s Highest Good society approach, global transformation methodology, and open source sharing goals. We have the ability to create abundance for all, to choose to lift everyone. In so doing, we can more sustainably and positively meet our own long-term emotional needs. This also means having other happy and successful people around us so we can all share and appreciate each other’s successes. 

 

THE ESSENCE OF THE CONSENSUS MODEL

The Community Planet group developed a consensus model for a Community of up to 500 people. Community Planet’s Jack Reed and Dr. Connie Stomper created a unique consensus training based on their experiences with group and organizational decision making. Their training differs from virtually all other consensus trainings. The primary focus of these unique trainings is on how to reference and access the consciousness of the Highest Good for All. While still covering techniques and procedures, those are secondary to the consciousness ” the awareness, attitudes and self-reflection ” that it takes to truly do consensus and collectively reach One Accord. Thus, the trainings are a comprehensive journey in discovering how our own needs are balanced with that of community and when it’s important to stand for one’s own perspective and when to yield to another that can better serve the whole. What one learns can be incorporated into everyday life, when interacting with a group(s), another person, or even with one’s self.

Through their experience, they learned that 12 is the magic number for consensus meetings – more than that and they have seen the process become exponentially more difficult. Hence, 12 is a number that permeates our expanded model for large-group consensus decision making. This criteria allows the consensus process to be efficient and effective while supporting full participation.

Community Planet has also found that effective and efficient collaborative decision-making is supported by:

• A positive and safe atmosphere to communicate, participate, and voice concerns
• An enterprise aimed at achieving The Highest Good of All Concerned
• A focus on synthesizing various perspectives into a uniquely new outcome where everyone wins
• Keeping everyone involved in decision-making by respectfully listening to the truth within each other and responding with kindness, consideration, and loving honesty
• Encouraging the natural leadership of each person
• Keeping participation creative, spontaneous, and fun – a process by which a group oneness emerges from individual input
• Helping to keep individuals supported and assisted in reaching their personal goals
• Maintaining guidelines that are dynamic, flexible, and simple

Click here for the Consensus Details Page with complete information and specifics

 

THE LARGE-SCALE CONSENSUS GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

We have developed a large-scale consensus governance model to accommodate groups of nearly 2000 people. This model is designed to allow all Community members to play a role in the decisions related to them. We discuss the details of this large-scale structure with the following sections:

• How Do We Reach Consensus
• Functioning With Multiple Groups of 12
• Highest Good Network for Consensus Governance
• Consensus Governance With Groups
  • Discussion Groups
  • Focus Groups
  • Approval Groups
  • Administrative Group
• How the Groups Function Together
  • • Discussion and Brainstorming
    • Idea Vetting and Implementation
• Focus Group Functions
  • Open Source Sharing Focus Group
  • Governance Focus Group
  • Enrichment, Enjoyment, and Vitalization Focus Group
  • Sustainability and Conservation Focus Group
  • Community Contribution Focus Group
  • Health Focus Group
  • Planning and Expansion Focus Group
  • Construction Focus Group
  • Food Production and Water Focus Group
  • Community Outreach Focus Group
  • Education Focus Group
  • Economics and Accounting Focus Group
• Management
• Administration
• Decision-Making
  • Going from Idea to Implementation
  • 2-Step Emergency Decision Procedure
• Large-scale Consensus Governance Growth Points
• Checks and Balances

 

HOW DO WE REACH A CONSENSUS

Perhaps the most essential question for Community living is, “How do we reach consensus?” In our consensus trainings, “how do we reach a consensus” is answered most simply through awareness and maintenance of the following:

• Creating a positive atmosphere for people to communicate and participate
• Involving everyone in the decision-making
• Encouraging the natural leadership of each person
• Making participation in decision-making creative, spontaneous, and fun
• Supporting and assisting individuals in reaching their personal goals
• Making decisions that support what the Community has affirmed it wants
• Creating decisions where everyone wins
• Keeping the guidelines dynamic, flexible, and simple
• Listening to the truth within each other and responding with kindness, consideration, and loving honesty

There is obviously much more to it than just this, but these foundations along with focusing on maintaining the consciousness for The Highest Good of All, proper training for all participants, and maintaining consensus decision making groups no larger than 12 are the basics. To avoid repeating information communicated in more detail elsewhere on this site, visit the Consensus Details page to learn the specifics. We’ll also be adding here and to that page our experience, solutions to challenges we encounter, and other suggestions as we grow the consensus process on the property.

 

FUNCTIONING WITH MULTIPLE GROUPS OF 12

Multiple groups are formed when there are more than 12 people. With this group size, everyone is heard and honored, while maintaining decision-making efficiency. With multiple groups, there is a need for added transparency too. This is because not everyone can be present and participate in all the discussions happening at once.

In support of maximum transparency, all decisions and happenings will be available for everyone to access using the Highest Good Network software, Google Docs, or some similar public format. In the case of decisions requiring representative groups (see Approval Groups and Administrative Group below), complete Community viewing and input will happen through Community broadcasting of the discussion and decision-making process so members can communicate with their representative in real time if needed.

 

HIGHEST GOOD NETWORK FOR CONSENSUS GOVERNANCE

The Highest Good Network (HGN) software will be used by One Community (and approved contributors) to support consensus governance and decision-making. The HGN informs everyone about all Community proceedings and activities. This allows individuals and Discussion Groups to stay connected and involved during decision-making events that impact the Community at all levels (individually and as a whole).

The major planned components of the HGN software as they relate to consensus governance are:

• Real-time and transparent consensus input
• Announcements related to consensus governance
• Ability to take a community vote if consensus agrees to take one
• Ability to assign permission to individuals and/or groups for sharing proposals
• Log of a proposal’s movement through the decision-making/vetting process
• Administrative ability to assign group permissions for input on particular subjects
• Concerns, suggestions, and recommendations for active proposals
• Reports for tracking and sharing of all important Community metrics
• General announcements

The structure of our large-scale consensus governance model, which is adapted from Jack Reed’s model, is detailed in the next section.

 

CONSENSUS GOVERNANCE WITH GROUPS

The large-scale consensus governance model we outline here is designed for groups as large as 1728 people. The image below shows how a group of this size would be organized. The group descriptions below discuss the functions of all components.

Everyone who wants to participate can and will be included fairly and equally. Groups (no larger than 12 people) are formed and membership is rotated. The 4 types of groups are: Focus Groups, Discussion Groups, Approval Groups, and Administrative Group. The image below gives an overview of these groups that Community members (individually represented by the small pink dots in the image below) can participate in.

 

DISCUSSION GROUPS

Discussion Groups (represented by small green squares in the image above) provide an opportunity for all individuals to participate in the generation of ideas that inform the direction and manner in which the Community evolves. This group is a source of individual Community participation and interactions for exploring different perspectives, and an avenue for everyone to have a voice and participate in brainstorming/generating ideas.

 

FOCUS GROUPS

Focus Groups (represented by small blue squares in the image above) provide an opportunity for all individuals to exercise their expertise and participate in the planning of the 12 foundational aspects of how a Community operates and the questions around how we live together. Although there are 12 foundational aspects, each foundational aspect can have subgroups to accommodate all members desiring to participate. Like the Discussion Group, this group is also a source of individual Community participation and interactions for exploring different perspectives. The purpose of this group is evaluating the viability of brainstormed ideas in a collaborative format.

 

APPROVAL GROUPS

There are 12 Approval Groups (represented by purple squares in the image above) made up of 5 to 12 representatives – 1 representative from each Discussion Group. The Approval Group makes final decisions on major directional and policy issues after consensus moves the idea to this group from the Focus Group level. These decisions typically impact the village level.

 

ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP

There is a single 12-member Administrative Group (represented by an orange circle in the center of the image above). The representatives collectively represent the breadth of the entire focus area (i.e. 1 of the 12 foundational aspects of how a Community operates). The Administrative Group coordinates the implementation of plans and activities approved by the Focus Groups, and pass budgets and delegates who or what group will manage the different budgets. These decisions typically impact the entire Community.

 

HOW THE GROUPS FUNCTION TOGETHER

The Focus Groups, Discussion Groups, Approval Groups, and Administrative Group work together and support one another. The specifics of how are described in detail below. A summary is also provided in the following table, which includes the Purpose, Criteria, Who, and How Many for each group type.

Click here for the open source version of this table.

Here is a mind map that provides a graphical representation of the same information presented in the summary table above. The mind map shows the 4 different types of groups with pertinent details of each. The mind map also lists the overall criteria for the large-scale consensus governance model and the general workings of how a decision is made.

 

DISCUSSION AND BRAINSTORMING

All Community members (who want to participate) belong to a Discussion Group. Each Discussion Group is 5 to 12 Community members with diverse backgrounds to encourage cross-pollination of ideas. The number of Discussion Groups is equal to or greater than the number of Community members wanting to participate divided by the desired group size. Individual group sizes will tend towards minimizing the number of members per group. The goal is to have more small groups (vs. fewer large groups) so there is the potential to have shorter meetings and avoid teaming. The purpose of the Discussion Group is to provide a collaborative platform for initial discussion of issues affecting the Community. This is the creative space in which researched ideas are discussed and formulated that ultimately guide the broad and general workings of the Community.

Discussion Groups meet on the 1st Monday of the month. Additional meetings are scheduled when needed. Proxy input is allowed if people must leave early but the extra input from the absent person can only be used to support decisions. In the case of disagreeing with decisions, the person must be physically present to share their concerns and discuss solutions. Members rotate through random selection every 6 months or whenever 10% or more of the Community desires it. Members can also change groups if:

1. All groups remain close to the same size – no groups are formed with a size difference greater than 1 with any other group; 
2. The change doesn’t put people in relationships together – so it maintains group-input diversity and reduces people in relationships from teaming up on issues; and 
3. In the case of a “swap”, there must be a consensus by both groups. 

 

IDEA VETTING AND IMPLEMENTATION

Discussion Groups research and consensus-approve ideas. These ideas are then advanced to the relevant Focus Group. In this way, the Focus Group implements the vision and direction of the Discussion Groups. The purpose of the Focus Group in this case is to formally vet and further develop the ideas from Discussion Groups. The Focus Groups can also develop and implement their own ideas related to the focus of their group.

The Focus Groups work under the budget passed by the Administrative Group. All Community members (who want to participate) belong to at least one Focus Group.

5 to 12 Community members with the greatest expertise in the particular foundational aspect make up each Focus Group. There are a maximum of 12 primary operational categories. When new or additional members need to be integrated, each foundational way the Community operates can be further subdivided. This results in most of the 12 operational areas being made up of more than one group. See example here.

The number of Focus Groups is equal to the participating members divided by the desired group size. The goal is to have large Focus Groups, targeting 10 to 12 members per group, so there are more “brains in the game”. With 10+ people the emergency procedure is also maximally applicable. This means ideas will get pushed through more easily because with larger groups at least 3 people are required to stop an idea.

Members rotate on a set schedule or whenever 10% or more of the Community desires it, whichever comes first. Members can also change groups if a position is open or two groups agree to a swap. The existing experienced members of the given Focus Group can add or remove non-experienced people by consensus.

Focus Groups meet on the 2nd Monday of the month. Additional meetings are scheduled when needed. Proxy input is allowed to support decisions.

 

FOCUS GROUP FUNCTIONS

Focus groups collaborate on the focus areas which deal with the work and planning of these twelve foundational aspects of how a Community operates and addresses aspects of how we live together. The following table and paragraphs provide these details for each Focus Group: core values addressed, infrastructure component addressed, underlying guiding questions, overall task, and example tasks.

 

OPEN SOURCE SHARING FOCUS GROUP

Answering the question:

“How do we open source/share our abundance?”

The Open Source Sharing Group deals with the work and planning of open source strategies purposed to reach and service as broad an audience as possible. One Community’s goal in doing this is to demonstrate leadership in accelerating the world transitioning towards humanity awakening and living for The Highest Good of All. Specific tasks include everything related to evolving and sharing all of One Community’s open source materials in different formats.

In decision-making at One Community, this Focus Group applies the relevant core values by asking ourselves the following key questions:

• Can we make this even easier for others to duplicate?
• How can the solutions be customizable/modifiable?
• How can we make this even easier for others to contribute collaboratively?
• Can we create and open source share in a manner that will serve and be even more adaptable to diverse cultures, applications, and perspectives?
• Can we be even more inclusive and considerate of all members of our global Community?

The Open Source Sharing Focus Group addresses elements in support of 3 of our 14 core values: Open Source Sharing, Diversity, and Community. Open source sharing falls under the Highest Good of All Stewardship infrastructure component that includes the complete One Community project.

 

GOVERNANCE FOCUS GROUP

Answering the question:

“How do we reach consensus and communicate?”

The Governance Focus Group deals with the work and planning of a self-governance structure to promote an empowered and effective group creative process. Some specific tasks include making evolutionary adjustments to the governance structure, conflict resolution, addressing challenges with (and potential removal of) individual community members, etc.

In decision-making at One Community, this Focus Group applies the relevant core values by asking ourselves the following key questions:

• Can the decision-making process be even more efficient and effective for all?
• Have all viewpoints been fully expressed, heard, and addressed while still moving forward?
• How can we step outside of personal preferences to use One Community’s values and The Highest Good of All thinking even more?
• Are we demonstrating maximal responsibility and integrity in each situation?
• How can we create even more proactive and conscientious outcomes for, or movement towards, a better future for all?
• Can we promote and help create True Community even more?
• Can we be even more inclusive and considerate of all members of our global Community?
• Are we respecting people’s rights not to participate?
• Are we allowing every group to thrive/succeed/create change?
• Does this respect the freedom of an individual to choose while also supporting the Purpose, Mission, Vision, and Values of One Community?
• Are we demonstrating open-minded, Highest Good of All, free thinking even more?
• Are we respecting different perspectives and creating solutions for all, including non-participants?
• Have we considered all possible input to come to the best possible decision/direction available?

The Governance Focus Group addresses elements in support of 6 of our 14 core values: Consensus Decision Making, Honesty and Integrity, Community, Freedom, Personal Growth & Spirituality, and Communication. Governance falls under the Highest Good society infrastructure component.

 

ENRICHMENT, ENJOYMENT, AND VITALIZATION FOCUS GROUP

Answering the question:

“How do we enjoy, enrich, and vitalize ourselves?”

The Enrichment, Enjoyment, and Vitalization Focus Group deals with the work and planning of what people want most in life – a fulfilled life – which will ultimately start a massive movement with exponential participation. Some specific tasks include all elements of the social and recreation structures, growth and enrichment, fulfilled living, mental/emotional health support, etc.

In decision-making at One Community, this Focus Group applies the relevant core values by asking ourselves the following key questions:

• Can we enrich our environment or situation even more for us and others?
• Are we enhancing the holistic synergy of ALL aspects of fulfilled Highest Good of All living?
• Can One Community come even more from a for The Highest Good of All perspective?
• How can One Community be accomplished with even more compassion, empathy, and caring?
• Can One Community be created from a place that is even more possibility-focused and loving for everyone?
• How can we make One Community more fun/easier/inviting so others want to contribute to it too?
• Can we promote and help create True Community even more?
• How can we transcend ideology even more at One Community?
• Can we leverage and express the talents and skills of our group even more?
• What is the best way to share the results as an open source resource for the growth of others and The Highest Good of All?
• Are we being conscious of all belief systems and acting and creating for maximum inclusiveness?

The Enrichment, Enjoyment, and Vitalization Focus Group addresses elements in support of 6 of our 14 core values: Fulfilled Living, Love and Compassion, Diversity, Contribution, Community, and Personal Growth & Spirituality. Enrichment, enjoyment, and vitalization fall under the Highest Good society infrastructure component.

 

SUSTAINABILITY AND CONSERVATION FOCUS GROUP

Answering the question:

“How do we live sustainably, regeneratively, and symbiotically with our planet and each other?”

The Sustainability and Conservation Focus Group deals with the work and planning of 100% sustainable/net-zero energy production and no-waste carbon-negative living model, which balances convenience and ecological protection simultaneously. Some specific tasks include energy generation, conservation of all finite resources, heating water, insulation, recycling, minimizing packaging waste, finding sustainable companies, Highest Good Lifestyle, Highest Good technology and innovation, etc.

In decision-making at One Community, this Focus Group applies the relevant core values by asking ourselves the following key questions:

• What decision best supports our goals for a global transition to sustainability?
• How can we optimize this approach for optimal proactivity, regeneration, and coexistence?
• Is this decision sustainably sustainable: supporting and forwarding One Community’s open source goals, The Highest Good of All philosophy, and Highest Good society intentions too?

The Sustainability and Conservation Focus Group addresses elements in support of 1 of our 14 core values: Sustainability. Sustainability and conservation fall under the Highest Good energy and Highest Good of All Stewardship components.

 

COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTION FOCUS GROUP

Answering the question:

“How do we coordinate living and organizational functions?”

The Community Contribution Focus Group deals with the work and work planning for the 100%-volunteer Community Member team. This includes maximizing both individual and collective contribution efforts. Some specific tasks include Highest Good Network development, day-to-day operations, etc.

In decision-making at One Community, this Focus Group applies the relevant core values by asking ourselves the following key questions:

• Can each activity be more fun/easier/inviting so others want to contribute to it too?
• How can this positively contribute even more to our local community AND our sustainability and global goals?
• Are we maximizing both individual and our collective contribution efforts so that they positively affect the big picture even more?
• Can we promote and help create True Community even more?
• How can we transcend ideology even more in this case?
• Are we respecting people’s rights not to participate?
• Are we allowing every group to thrive/succeed/create change?
• Does this respect the freedom of an individual to choose while also supporting the Purpose, Mission, Vision, and Values of One Community?

The Community Contribution Focus Group addresses elements in support of 3 of our 14 core values: Contribution, Freedom, and Community. Community Contribution falls under the Highest Good society component.

 

HEALTH AND WELLNESS FOCUS GROUP

Answering the question:

“How do we nourish and invigorate ourselves?”

The Health and Wellness Focus Group deals with the work and planning of high-quality and diverse foods, exercise, safety, and other wellness options to maintain maximal health and vigor. Some specific tasks include kitchen operation and maintenance, menu development, suggestions for exercise and other health-focused social contributions, community safety protocols, etc.

In decision-making at One Community, this Focus Group applies the relevant core values by asking ourselves the following key questions:

• Are our food and nutrition aligned with all of our values?
• How can we create the most “winning” situations for all involved in preparing and eating our food?
• Is the process of preparing our food solution-focused, coming from love, and designed for maximum positive impact?

The Health and Wellness Group addresses elements in support of 1 of our 14 core values: Highest Good of All. Food preparation and nutrition fall under the Highest Good food infrastructure component and health and wellness fall under the Highest Good society component.

 

PLANNING AND EXPANSION FOCUS GROUP

Answering the question:

“How do we beautify our environment and integrate permaculture principles?”

The Planning and Expansion Focus Group deals with the work and planning for making all buildings and expansions beautiful expressions of our way of living. Specific task examples include coming up with beautiful designs for everything we build and maximization of permaculture principle integration/inclusion.

In decision-making at One Community, this Focus Group applies the relevant core values by asking ourselves the following key questions:

• Are our planning and expansion decisions aligned with all of our values?
• How can we create the most “winning” situations for all involved in planning and expansion?
• Are our decisions solution-focused, coming from love, and designed for maximum positive impact?

The Planning and Expansion Focus Group addresses elements in support of 1 of our 14 core values: Highest Good of All. Planning and expansion falls under Highest Good Food, Energy, Housing, and Education infrastructure components.

 

CONSTRUCTION FOCUS GROUP

Answering the question:

“How do we expand our Community?”

The Construction Focus Group deals with the work and planning of all things related to engineering and construction management for all infrastructure components. Some specific tasks include engineering and constructing the different components of each village, Duplicable City Center, etc.

In decision-making at One Community, this Focus Group applies the relevant core values by asking ourselves the following key questions:

• Are construction decisions aligned with all of our values?
• How can we create the most “winning” situations for all involved in the construction process?
• Are our decisions solution-focused, coming from love, and designed for maximum positive impact?

The Construction Focus Group addresses elements in support of 1 of our 14 core values: Highest Good of All. Construction falls under Highest Good Food, Energy, Housing, and Education infrastructure components.

 

FOOD PRODUCTION AND WATER FOCUS GROUP

Answering the question:

“How do we provide food and water for ourselves in a way that sustains natural systems and integrates permaculture principles?”

The Food Production and Water Focus Group deals with the work and planning for designing sustainable human settlements and preserving and extending natural systems. Some specific tasks include large-scale gardening, permaculture design, humane chickens, goats, sheep, and rabbits husbandry, etc.

In decision-making at One Community, this Focus Group applies the relevant core values by asking ourselves the following key questions:

• Are our decisions for the provision of food and water aligned with all of our values?
• How can we create the most “winning” situations for all involved in the production of food and provision of water?
• Are we making this decision even more solution-focused, coming from love, and designed for maximum positive impact?

The Food Production and Water Focus Group addresses elements in support of 1 of our 14 core values: The Highest Good of All. Food production and water fall under Highest Good food infrastructure component.

 

COMMUNITY OUTREACH FOCUS GROUP

Answering the question:

“How do we build the future we want and communicate our message to the world?”

The Community Outreach Focus Group deals with the work and planning for inspiring as many people as possible to help positively and permanently transform the world for everyone. Some specific tasks include coordination with organizations collaborating for the Highest Good, evolving the community member invitation process, interactions with the local community, tours, marketing, etc.

In decision-making at One Community, this Focus Group applies the relevant core values by asking ourselves the following key questions:

• How can this be even more inclusive and considerate of all members of our global Community?
• Is this communication with the global Community in alignment with all other One Community values?
• How can we best share so others can learn from and/or duplicate our open source results?
• Can we think “outside of the box” even more both individually and as an organization?
• How can this forward the diversity of all of our core organizational values and our team even more?
• How can we create and open source share in a manner that will serve and be even more adaptable to diverse cultures, applications, and perspectives?

The Community Outreach Focus Group addresses elements in support of 3 of our 14 core values: Community, Contribution, and Diversity. Community outreach falls under Highest Good society and the Highest Good of All Stewardship component that includes the complete One Community project.

 

EDUCATION FOCUS GROUP

Answering the question:

“How do we bring forth inner wisdom?”

The Education Focus Group deals with the work and planning of the all-ages curriculum for life. Some specific tasks include developing and evolving the lesson plans for life, evaluation and evolution process, maintaining licensing, etc.

In decision-making at One Community, this Focus Group applies the relevant core values by asking ourselves the following key questions:

• Are the educational offerings aligned with all of our values?
• How can we create the most “winning” situations for all involved in educational offerings?
• Are our decisions solution-focused, coming from love, and designed for maximum positive impact?

The Education Focus Group addresses elements in support of one of our 14 core values: Highest Good of All. Education falls under the Highest Good education infrastructure component.

 

ECONOMICS AND ACCOUNTING FOCUS GROUP

Answering the question:

“How do we achieve a resource and sharing-based economy?”

The Economics and Accounting Focus Group deals with accounting and the work and planning and of the replicable resource and sharing-based economy, for-profit business components, nonprofit components, and collaborative-entrepreneurial economic models. Some specific tasks include coordination with organizations collaborating for the Highest Good, business maintenance and upkeep, home shares, etc.

In decision-making at One Community, this Focus Group applies the relevant core values by asking ourselves the following key questions:

• Can we transcend ideology even more for Highest Good economics?
• Are we allowing every group to thrive/succeed/create change?
• How can this be even more inclusive and considerate of all members of One Community and our global Community?

The Economics and Accounting Focus Group addresses elements in support of two of our 14 core values: Community and Freedom. Economics and accounting falls under the Highest Good economics infrastructure component.

 

MANAGEMENT

The Approval Groups and the Administrative Group are made up of representatives from the Discussion Groups and Focus Groups, respectively. No one is ever elected a leader. Additionally, no one has long-term control of power, because the representation and leadership rotates on a regular basis. The purpose of the Approval Groups is to make final decisions on major directional and policy issues after consensus moves the idea to this group from the Focus Group level. The decisions made at this level typically impact the village level.

One representative from each Discussion Group forms a 5-12 member Approval Group. Like the Focus Group, the goal is to have large groups, targeting 10-12 members per group, so there are more “brains in the game”. With 10+ people, the emergency procedure is also maximally applicable. This is because ideas get pushed through more easily due to larger groups requiring at least 3 people stop an idea.

There are a maximum of 12 Approval Groups and an Approval Group will represent a maximum of 144 people. Representation in these groups rotate per meeting and is at the will of the Discussion Group so that no group/person has long-term control of power. Approval Groups meet on the 3rd Monday of the month. Additional meetings are scheduled when needed. No proxy input is allowed for this group. If a member can’t be present, a new representative must be consensus-chosen from their Discussion Group to cover their absence.

Representatives stay in contact/communication with their Discussion Group during all Approval Group discussions/decisions.

 

ADMINISTRATION

There is a single 12-member Administrative Group. The purpose of the Administrative Group is to coordinate the implementation of plans and activities approved by the Focus Groups. This group also passes budgets and delegates who or what group will manage the different budgets. The decisions made at this level typically impact the entire Community.

The Administrative group is made up of 1 representative from each major Community foundational-operations Focus Group. The representatives are consensus-chosen based on who each major Focus Group thinks would best represent them and the person that has the best understanding of the breadth of knowledge of the Community foundational operations they are representing. The representatives collectively represent the breath of the entire Community (i.e. 1 for each of the 12 foundational aspects of how a Community operates).

A 12-person Administrative Group will represent a maximum of 1,728 people. The Administrative Group meets on the 4th Monday of the month. Additional meetings are scheduled when needed. No proxy input is allowed for this group. If a member can’t be present, a new representative must be consensus-chosen from their Focus Group to cover their absence.

 

DECISION-MAKING

The information exchange and decision-making within this structure is always a multi-person process. This is very different from a top-down decision-making process. In essence, community consensus is reached as a consensus agreement is needed and achieved within each of the groups described above. This gives everyone a voice and an opportunity to group-create unique solutions that benefit the entire Community.

In summary, the Focus Group critically evaluates ideas that the Discussion Group feeds to them. Those ideas that are agreed upon by consensus are then advanced for a decision on implementation by one of the following:

1. Approval Group that has a representative from the Discussion Group where the idea originated.
2. Approval Group assigned through consensus and based on objective qualifications to make decisions on ideas that fall into a particular category.
3. Individual assigned through consensus and based on objective qualifications to make decisions for ideas pertaining to a particular topic.
4. Focus Group assigned through consensus for decisions on ideas that fall into assigned categories.
5. Administrative Group if the idea impacts the entire Community and doesn’t fit #2, 3, or 4 above.

 

GOING FROM IDEA TO IMPLEMENTATION

This section covers how an idea gets implemented through this model. The consensus process is used at every step, from generation of the idea to its implementation. The image below shows the flow of the process – click here for the source.

 

 

IDEA

Members of Discussion Groups generate ideas. These ideas are vetted and put to consensus within the Discussion Group to which the idea-originator belongs. If consensus is not reached, the individual interested in the idea can work on their own time to enroll someone from another Discussion Group to support the idea. The new person then seeks a consensus from their group so it can have another chance to move to the Focus Group level. The person can repeat this process with as many Discussion Groups as they want, so long as they can enroll a person within those groups to present and work with their own group to develop the idea.

 

IMPLEMENTATION

Ideas supported by consensus are advanced to the relevant Focus Group. The Focus Group critically evaluates these ideas. If consensus is not reached in the Focus Group, the specific reasons why are publicly communicated. Anyone still wanting to move the idea forward is invited to use the public posting to seek acceptable solutions. On the other hand, if consensus is reached by the Focus Group, the idea can take 1 of 4 paths that entail further discussion of its viability and implementation:

1. Administrative Group: Final step when an idea impacts the entire Community
2. Approval Group that has the representative from the Discussion Group where the idea originated: Final step when the idea impacts a single village and does not fall under a category predetermined as implementable by/at the Focus Group level
3. Stays at the Focus Group level: Final step when an idea impacts a single village and the idea falls into a category predetermined by the Approval Group as implementable by a consensus at the Focus Group level
4. Predetermined individual or group of individuals assigned through consensus to make decisions for ideas pertaining to that specific topic

 

2-STEP EMERGENCY DECISION PROCEDURE

If there is near consensus in any of these groups, with just 1 or 2 people specifically trying to stop the decision, then a 2-step emergency procedure may be used. Step 1 of this process will be the option for any individual to call for an 80% majority consensus to end discussion. This is only requested if it seems all points have been heard, all options explored, and complete inflexibility still exists in a small enough minority.

The first 80% majority consensus ends discussion and the second 80% majority consensus is to make a decision. If both of these 80% consensus agreements succeed, a decision will be made in accordance with the will of the 80% majority. This process is used to keep things moving when there is a holdup. Some options include: making a decision on part of an idea, electing a committee to make the decision, and electing to do more research.

This system eliminates the possibility of any obstructionist individual(s) from stopping a decision while also ensuring we maintain our commitment to the values of consensus described on the Consensus as a Core Value page. The emergency procedure addresses this very concern, because it allows 80% of the group to move a decision forward with 2 separate 80% majority consensus decisions. First by ending further discussion if all ideas have been heard and all options have been explored. Then, if further discussion is ended, 80% of the group has to agree to move the idea forward. The group continues the discussion or tables it for later discussion if either of these 80% consensus fail.

 

LARGE-SCALE CONSENSUS GOVERNANCE GROWTH POINTS

The consensus governance structure looks different depending on the size of the Community. The resulting structure can be explored using the following spreadsheet.

This spreadsheet determines the number of groups for each group type based on overall Community size and the criteria for the different group sizes. Each group size has the following transition points based the on criteria for each group type. These include Discussion Groups tending towards smaller group sizes to promote shorter meetings and avoid teaming. Also Focus, Approval, and Administrative Group targeting 10 to 12 members per group to maximize the ‘brains in the game,’ and to add efficiency when decisions are being held up by 1 or 2 people. It factors in the maximum of 12 Approval Groups and maximum of 1 Administrative Group too.

 

SPECIFIC GROWTH POINTS

With all of the above considered, here’s the group breakdowns based on community size:

• 1 to 9 Community members: Only 1 Discussion Group; Only 1 Focus Group that covers multiple operational categories; No Approval Groups; No Administrative Group
• 10 to 49 Community members: Multiple Discussion Groups; Multiple Focus Groups but still less than 12, so some Focus Groups are heading multiple operational categories; No Approval Groups; No Administrative Group
• 50 to 132 Community members: Multiple Discussion Groups; Multiple Focus Groups but still less than 12, so some Focus Groups are heading multiple operational categories; Only 1 Approval Group; No Administrative Group
• 133 to 144 Community members: Multiple Discussion Groups; 12 Focus Groups, one for each operational category; Multiple Approval Groups; 1 Administrative Group
• 145 to 1727 Community members: Multiple Discussion Groups; More than 12 Focus Groups, one for each operational category, as well as subcategories; Multiple Approval Groups; 1 Administrative Group
• 1728 Community members: The maximum number of Approval Groups reached. All groups at capacity.

We will come up with a system better to represent more than 1728 members by the time we foresee needing more than 12 Approval Groups and 1 Administrative Group.

 

CHECKS AND BALANCES

Checks and balances are built into each step of the consensus process. The most obvious is requiring consensus for any idea to move forward towards implementation. The 2-step emergency process is also available if needed to keep things moving.

Each community member is a member of both a Discussion Group and at least one Focus Group so they are exposed to a duality of perspectives and providing their unique input to at least two groups. To maximize the effectiveness of Focus Groups, Discussion Groups vet and properly format ideas before they go to Focus Groups. Ideas can resurface, even if they were stopped at the Discussion Group level, by introducing the idea to a different Discussion Group by any member of that group. Ideas can be problem solved and presented again to the same or another Focus or Approval Group, even if it was stopped at that level.

Approval Group membership/representation is consensus-chosen monthly by the Discussion Groups. Administrative Group membership is consensus-chosen monthly by the Focus Groups. Group membership in all groups and processes is optional. People not happy with their Discussion or Focus groups, or groups not happy with a member, can swap with other members/groups so long as both groups agree. The members of Discussion Groups also rotate through random selection every 6 months or whenever 10% or more of the Community desires it.

 

HIGHEST GOOD NETWORK

The Highest Good Network will also be used (see the “Highest Good Network for Consensus Governance” section) to communicate and gather input on all ideas and discussions happening. Ideas will be indicated when identified by Focus Groups as especially important for community input. Notifications will also be sent to all community members requesting their review and/or input, as deemed necessary. Focus, Approval, or Administrative Group levels can send notifications and initiate the input process. Participation will always be voluntary.

 

CONSENSUS GOVERNANCE DISPUTE RESOLUTION FORMAT

In disputes or situations where emotions have become involved, the consciousness for The Highest Good of All has been forgotten or put aside. In other words, people are no longer coming from “The Loving,” or “involving their egos,” or “running an agenda.”

Personal responsibility is encouraged in these situations. First by looking within with the consciousness that we create and promote for our lives and subjective perspectives. Parties are encouraged to settle disputes using win/win resolutions. The parties involved can choose from these flexible options, while concurrently bringing in love and creativity:

• Between the parties involved (possibly with the Conflict Resolution Format)
• With an agreed upon third party
• Within the group(s)
• By the Approval Group agreed upon by those involved
• If still no progress, to the Governance Focus Group for possible dismissal

This system is flexible with each situation, and the parties involved can choose the options. Also, everyone in the Community belongs to both a Discussion Group as well as one of the Focus Groups. While the Focus Group involves more of the work being done in the 12 operational areas, there still is group support that takes place there, and, if there is an issue where one is lapsing from that consciousness of The Highest Good of All, it will be obvious to the group. However, the Discussion Groups consist of a group of up to 12 people who are a real support system for each of those members. Individual issues will usually surface and be addressed there.

 

EMERGENCY PROCEDURES

Sometimes things will happen that need attention faster than a formal (full-community involved) Administrative or Approval Group meeting process. Emergency procedures are taken based on the kind of problem encountered, unless there is a pre-existing emergency committee to address the problem.

 

LOCALIZED PROBLEM

These are problems involving danger or immediate threat to the whole community but doesn’t require the entire community to take action. An example of this would be damage to important infrastructure. In cases like this, the Approval Group chairperson(s) (designated each month by a consensus of the Approval Groups) would meet with the Administrative Group chairperson (designated each month by the Administrative Group) and they would work together to gather the expertise they need to deal with the situation.

 

COMMUNITY-WIDE PROBLEM

This would be an emergency situation that needs immediate attention and affects the whole community. An emergency committee should already exist for every situation like this, but if not, the Administrative Group chairperson would declare an emergency and either notify Community members of the situation, call an emergency Administrative Group meeting, or appropriate Focus Group meeting to address the situation as needed.

 

EMERGENCY COMMITTEES

Emergency committees are consensus-chosen to address specific emergency situations. Their purpose is to implement short-term solution(s).

• Short-term solutions are actions to be taken, within a one-week period, to maintain the health and welfare of the Community
• The committee recommends long-term solutions to the Approval Group
• The committee’s authority ends upon resolution of the emergency by the Approval Group
• Approval Group or Administrative Group may, by a simple majority, override the decision that there is an emergency – this is not an exception to the process of unifying for consensus, but rather it prevents immediate action on the part of a person or group who has been acting without the consensus process in a perceived emergency
• Designated successors are available for immediate emergencies
• Each type of emergency has set maximum budgets
• The committee’s authority extends to the short-term solution, and they will make a full report of procedures, expenses, etc. at the next Approval Group meeting

 

ADDITIONAL MEASURES

The following additional checks and balances will also be in place. These are all managed by a consensus at the Administrative Group level or by a group or individual agreed upon by a consensus at the Administrative Group level. If the group is not large enough to have an Administrative Group, then the Approval Group or appropriate Focus Group manages/provides these:

• There will be an Annual Vision and Budget with allocations to each focus area
• The Approval Group (and any other groups or individuals with consensus-chosen decision-making ability) reports to the Administrative Group on a regular basis and a monthly financial statement goes out to everyone
• All meetings and transactional and meeting notes are Community accessible by computer or other media
• A consensus-chosen accountant(s) (or the Governance Group) monitors the Community expenditures
• Budgets may include one-time (one check, one item, and/or one payee) spending limits above which one must get approval from the Administrative Group

 

 

SUMMARY

The One Community large-scale consensus governance model consists of 4 types of groups. Everyone belongs to a Discussion Group and a Focus Group. Approval and Administrative Group representatives are selected by the Discussion and Focus Groups, respectively. Technology will allow all members to be a part of all decisions. To summarize consensus itself, the use of a consensus governance system thrives when ‘soft’ individualism is the standard and all decisions are ultimately based on and evaluated for The Highest Good of All Concerned. As is the case with any innovations, all gaps will be bridged when this model is applied. Consensus will create any additional structure(s) needed. Once we begin implementing the model, we will share our experience and any modifications made along the way.

 

FREQUENTLY ANSWERED QUESTIONS

Q: Where can I learn more about your other values and how you use each of them in your organization?

Click the icons below to be taken to a complete page for each value:

Q: Where can I get more information about your philosophies for world change?

Please take a look at each of these additional pages: (click icons)

Q: What happens when you have more people than available groups?

All people are included by increasing the number of groups. Any one group is still kept at a minimum of 5 and maximum of 12. In the case of Focus Groups, there could be more than one group for each focus area (or foundational aspect).

Q: Is every decision made by consensus?

No, the consensus process outlined on the Consensus as a Core Value page and above will be used to identify which decisions should be made by consensus and which decisions are better made by groups or individuals. These groups or individuals will be consensus-chosen and based on objective qualifications for their role.

Q: Where can I learn more about the basics/foundations of consensus? 

Please see the Consensus as a Core Value page.

Q: What about disputes and other decision situations where dramatic emotions may become involved? 

This is one of the reasons why consensus training and screening are essential. Further details on the Conflict Resolution may be found here.

Q: When a decision is clearly being sidetracked by one or two people, what happens?

For these situations, there is a two-step emergency procedure available.

Q: Can a Community member represent more than 1 Focus Group in the same Administrative Group?

No, for two reasons. First, the representative needs to represent and be in communication with their group during discussion. Representing multiple groups would reduce their ability to be effective with either of them. Second, the decisions affect the entire Community. We want as much diversity as possible as part of the decision-making process.

Q: What is “blocking”?

Blocking is when just one or two individuals desire to stop or sidetrack an idea regardless of the solutions proposed. This is addressed using the two-step emergency procedure or alternate pathways for pushing an idea forward.

Q: Do I have to be a member of each group?

Membership in all groups and processes is optional. If you want to be part of the decision-making process, you must be a member of a Discussion Group .

Q: Is majority voting ever used?

Yes, voting (or any other decision-making tool) can be used by the group making the decision. For example, if an Approval Group cannot decide if an idea should be implemented or not, then someone in the Approval Group can propose that the decision that is up in the air be put to a vote by all community members listening to the discussion (or all community members, or a Focus Group, or whatever is agreed upon for The Highest Good of All). The Approval Group then agrees on the relevant details needed, such as the percentage of “yeses” to move the decision forward. If the Approval Group agrees to proceed with majority voting, then discussion would end and a vote is taken.

Q: What is “enlightened self-interest” or “soft” individualism?

Enlightened self-interest or ‘soft’ individualism is recognizing that the best way to meet our own needs is by lifting others and meeting their needs too. We build a better and stronger society through cooperation. Enlightened self-interest or ‘soft’ individualism is when the consciousness of an individual is committed to The Highest Good of All with the realization that there are enough resources for everyone to live abundantly.

Q: How will you address details not covered or that haven’t even been thought about yet?

The site provides the general structure of self-governance within large groups. Consensus will direct the evolution of this self-governance model with large groups. When the idea is implemented, details will be worked out, as is the case with any innovative idea. All gaps will be bridged when the model is applied. Consensus will create any additional structure(s) needed. Once we begin implementing the model, we will share here our experience and any modifications made along the way.

Q: What if I can’t get a consensus by my Decision Group to move my idea forward?

See the processes detailed in the “Checks and Balances” section.

Q: What is ‘Proxy input’?

Someone can use proxy input if they cannot be present for a decision. The person needing to leave early (or not present for whatever reason) can have their input included by a person physically present. Someone can only use proxy input in support a decision. In the case of disagreeing with decisions, the person must be physically present to give their input and discuss their concerns.

Q: What is ‘Teaming’?

Teaming happens when people (often people in relationships) team up on issues for the sake of supporting each other rather than evaluating the issue independently and/or focusing on the consciousnesses needed to make decisions for The Highest Good of All.

Q: What does it look like to have a primary operational category subdivided?

Here is an example: The “How do we provide food and water for ourselves in a way that sustains natural systems and integrates permaculture principles?” covers all those involved with Large-scale Gardening, Soil Amendment, Food Forest creation, Permaculture Design, humane care for Chickens, Goats, Sheep, and Rabbits, and more. Let’s say up to 60 people are involved with the Food Production and Water Focus Group. That would mean that this focus area would have 5 or 6 different groups (possibly organized by the different jobs ” i.e. growing produce, raising animals, etc.). Those 5 or 6 groups would collectively have one person (with knowledge of the breath of what the entire focus area was doing) represent them all in the Administrative Group.