I would like to add a small clarification on process, in relation to Chris’ proposal to first consent to both proposals, and then do a vote.
We discussed it together, and we worked out that the typical use case of a counterproposal that is being quoted (p. 215) is more one along the lines of “let’s do flyers” vs “let’s do posters”, rather than two mutually exclusive proposals. On that same page it also clearly says that the formally correct way to move forward is a selection process between the two proposals.
Based on the sociocratic principles, a selection process (i.e. an argumented vote) is the only way to take a decision like this, which is mostly based on personal preference. The way it goes is that everybody in the round will get the opportunity to vote for the option of their preference, and to share the arguments that matter most for them. What is important here, and this is the advantage of a selection process, is that all arguments are welcome: rational, abstract, personal, emotional, … it really doesn’t matter. Doing it this way, some people who may have been neutral in the first round, may change their choice in the second round, leading to a more pronounced final vote. This is another plus of a selection process.
If we go into consent and objections first, we risk opening a discussion about what is a valid objection (is it personal preference or is it the interest of the group?), which can only lead to tension without much further progress towards a decision. I’m not sure I expressed myself very clearly at the meeting, but this is why I objected to this.