For me, there’s no reason why we can’t make our decision on the common spaces at this plenary, despite the fact that we didn’t devote as much time as we thought we would at the last one.
As I said in my post leading up to that plenary (Reef Commons: what if we put all the common spaces in Front - #21 by ChrisM), one option when dealing with counter proposals is to test consent for both as a starting point. The intention for the last plenary was to open with the sticky dot exercise to see which aspects of the decision were most important to everyone, then to make a space for people to say what they thought was in the best interests of the Reef and what their preferences were, and then move to a consent round for both the original proposal and the counter proposal.
As Lie points out in the same thread (Reef Commons: what if we put all the common spaces in Front - #31 by Lee), there is also the option of using a sociocratic selection process. Not only does that allow us to pick up where we left off and still make a decision, it also offers a rather elegant solution to the problem of ‘best for the Reef’ vs personal preferences (as Lie explains in her post). Finally, it also includes a consent round after the “voting” process.
So here’s how I see the decision process playing out for the common spaces:
- Discuss results of sticky dot exercise (photo to be added to agenda)
- Do a selection process between the two proposals
- Consent to the choice
An important point about giving a proxy if you can’t make it. Our governance document states that you can give a proxy if there is a vote. It doesn’t mention giving a proxy for consenting or objecting to a proposal, but there is nothing stopping us from doing this. The governance document also states that if a proposal is consented to at a meeting, then each member who is not present has 48 hours to object once the minutes are published. I personally prefer this to proxy consent, based on what the author of Many Voices, One Song has to say, as proposals can change significantly before a consent round, and discussions about them during the early rounds can lead to members changing their minds. However, this is a point that needs to be clarified between Team Governance and Team Facilitation in the near future.
For the common spaces decision, there will be both a type of multi-vote and a consent round. For the first round of the selection process, each household will have 8 dots to put on one proposal or the other, or divide between them. If you cannot be at the meeting, you can give your proxy to someone else to place your 8 dots. However, when it comes to the second round, where those present have the option of moving their dots based on what others have said, the proxy dots will remain where they are. It’s not perfect, but I think it’ll do.
Once a decision has been made (i.e. a proposal has been selected), there will be a consent round. In light of the fact that some people think we are currently able to give proxy consent or objections, you are welcome to do so if you will not be present. You would do this if you have an objection to one of the proposals, regardless of the group discussion during the selection process The other option is to raise your objection online in the 48 hours after the minutes of the plenary meeting are posted.
Feedback welcome 
If you are confused by any of the above, including proxies, feel free to reach out to me directly…
