- How do we tell personal preferences from the group’s interest?
- How do we know which level of importance to assign to a given decision?
In a sense, it’s true: meeting people’s personal preferences makes them happy, and it’s always in the group’s interest to make its members happy! But still, I see a clear demarcation between the two concepts. This is because this group has already encoded several decisions in its Blueprint document. So, if the consequences of a decision negate one of those, we can object to it to protect the group’s interest. For example, compromising on universal design might threaten the group’s interest for inclusion.
As for the importance level, the main confusion arises between levels 2 (medium importance, reversible, decide by team autonomy but consult the people impacted) and 3 (high importance, reversible, decide by consent). Again, in this case there is a simple test to deternine if the decision is very important or not: ask yourself who is impacted by it. If it is only one person or a few people, you should probably talk it out with her/them: if that person(s) is OK with the decision, you can implement it without further ado. If it is many people, then you might want to do it with a sociocracy round.
Any thoughts, anyone?