How communities decide

Governance is the least romantic subject in this guide and the one that most reliably predicts whether a community will still exist in ten years. Not because the right method saves a group, but because the absence of an agreed one lets power settle wherever it likes — usually on whoever has the most time, the longest history, and the most stamina at eleven at night.

The three that carry a proposal

A threshold vote. A written proposal is adopted if approvals clear an agreed share — more than half, or two-thirds for the weightier things. It is fast, legible, and for reversible operational decisions it is often the right answer; communities that put everything through consensus usually end up doing this informally anyway, just without admitting it. Its cost is structural: it manufactures a losing minority every time, and a minority that loses repeatedly stops coming.

Consensus Consensus A decision method requiring the agreement of all participants. Powerful for trust, slow under scale and fatigue.. A proposal is amended until nobody sustains a reasoned objection. It produces buy-in that nothing else matches, and the amendment loop — raise a concern, change the proposal, test again — is a genuinely good teacher of how to hear each other. Past ten or fifteen people it starts handing a veto to whoever is most tired or most stubborn.

Consent Consent A decision passes when no one has a reasoned, paramount objection. Not the same as everyone thinking it is the best idea.. A proposal passes when nobody has a reasoned, paramount objection. The question narrows from do you agree? to can you live with it, and can you name a harm? The bar moves from enthusiasm to tolerability, and the burden moves onto the objector to say what is actually wrong. Its standard — good enough for now, safe enough to try — assumes a review date, and quietly breaks without one.

The pair people most often confuse has a page: consensus vs consent. So does the argument most founding groups have: majority vote vs consensus.

Two things that are not methods

Polls and ranked votes do not decide anything. A poll reports how the group split; a ranked vote elects one option from several without splitting the vote. Both are for the stage before a proposal exists, and using them there is why some communities’ proposals pass easily — the disagreement was found before anything was drafted. A poll mistaken for a decision is one of the more reliable ways to produce an argument in March.

Sociocracy Sociocracy A governance system organising a group into linked circles, each with its own domain, deciding by consent. is a system, not a method: circles Circle A small team with a defined domain it may decide within, linked to the wider group in both directions. with defined domains Domain The decisions a circle or role may make alone, and the limits it may not cross without asking., linked in both directions, deciding by consent inside their boundary. It answers “who may decide this without asking?” rather than “what counts as agreement?” It is what lets a community of sixty stop bringing the compost rota to a general meeting — and the test of whether it is real is simple: if forming a circle has not made the general meeting shorter, the domain was never real. See also sociocracy vs holacracy.

Not one method — usually three

The thing most groups arrive at the hard way, usually after an evening spent on tile colours: sort decisions by what they cost to get wrong, and give each class its own method.

Operational business — the rota, the repair, the order — should be fast, delegated and reversible. Strategic decisions that commit money or change direction deserve a higher bar and a real discussion window. Constitutional questions about the community’s purpose, its agreements and its membership rules should be slow on purpose. And a decision nobody can classify defaults to the higher tier, or every borderline case drifts down toward the easier meeting.

On a visit, this is a useful thing to ask about directly. A community that names one method for everything is either very small, or not really using it. The full version is in decision methods, including what decision tiers Decision tiers Sorting decisions by what they cost to get wrong, and giving each class its own method and timeline. have to have written down to work.

The rule that matters more than the method

Whichever method a group picks, one thing decides whether it works: who may stop a decision, and on what grounds.

If any member may block anything for any reason, the community has not adopted a method. It has given everyone a veto and hoped nobody uses it — which holds until the first person does, and then never again.

A workable blocking concern Blocking concern In consensus, an objection serious enough to stop a proposal. Healthy systems define narrowly who may block and on what grounds. is defined three ways. Who may raise one — everyone, or the circle whose domain it is, or full members rather than those in a trial period. On what grounds — almost always harm to the group’s stated aim rather than personal preference. And what happens next, because a block that only stops things creates a queue that nobody owns.

Its necessary partner is stand aside Stand aside Recording that you disagree with a decision without stopping it. The release valve that makes consensus survivable at any size.: disagreeing on the record without stopping the group. Without it, anyone with a reservation faces only two options — swallow it, or escalate to a block they do not really believe in. Both are corrosive, and communities using consensus at any scale almost always have an explicit stand-aside convention.

Is this a blocking concern?

A proposal is on the table: replace the common house roof this autumn, using the maintenance fund. Five people speak. Which of them has raised something that should stop the decision?

1. "I would have chosen a different builder."

A blocking concern This is a preference. It may be an informed one, and it is worth hearing during the proposal stage — but it names no harm to the group or its aim. Treating preferences as blocks is how consensus quietly becomes a veto. A preference correct answer Right. The test is not whether you would have done it differently; it is whether this would damage the group or stop it meeting its aim. "I would have chosen differently" almost never clears that bar.

2. "This spends the reserve we agreed in March to hold for winter heating repairs."

A blocking concern correct answer Right. It names a specific harm, ties it to something the group already agreed, and is checkable — anyone can go and read the March minutes. This is exactly the shape a valid objection takes. A preference It reads like a factual correction, which is what makes it strong. A reasoned objection points at a consequence the group has already said it does not want.

3. "I don't trust the person who brought this proposal."

A blocking concern It may be a serious and legitimate problem — but it is not an objection to this proposal, and blocking here would settle nothing. The roof still needs deciding, and the distrust would surface again next month on a different subject. Neither — this belongs somewhere else correct answer Right, and this is the one groups handle worst. A real concern about a person goes to the conflict process, not the decision. Communities that let it be raised as a block end up relitigating a relationship every time anyone proposes anything.

4. "We agreed last year not to take on new debt, and this needs a loan."

A blocking concern correct answer Right. Like the reserve, it is a conflict with a standing agreement — and the resolution is not to override it quietly but to either change the proposal or reopen the agreement deliberately. A preference A standing agreement is not a preference. Where a proposal contradicts one, the group has two honest options and neither of them is to proceed while pretending the agreement does not exist.

5. "Something about this makes me uneasy and I can't say what."

A blocking concern Not yet — an objection has to be articulable, or nobody can address it and the proposal simply stalls. But dismissing it is the wrong move too: unease often turns out to be right, and it is worth asking for time to find the words. Not yet — this is a stand-aside correct answer Right. Standing aside records the disagreement without stopping the group, which is what makes it possible to be honest about doubt. If the unease later becomes specific, it can be raised properly — and the minutes will show who felt it first.

The meeting itself

Method matters less than most groups expect. Facilitation Facilitation Running a meeting's process without taking a side on its content. The role that decides whether a decision method works at all. matters more.

The facilitator holds the process — whose turn it is, which stage the proposal is at, when a decision has actually been reached — while staying out of the content. Naming the decision sounds trivial and is the thing groups most often fail to do, leaving meetings that end with nobody certain what was agreed and two people remembering it differently in March.

Rotate the role, even when someone is obviously good at it. A permanent facilitator accumulates authority nobody granted them: they decide what gets discussed, and when a thing is settled. Rotation also spreads the skill, which is what a community needs when its one competent facilitator is away for a month.

Reading it from the outside

You cannot audit a community’s governance in an afternoon. You can learn a surprising amount.

Ask to see a decision, not the method. “How do you decide things?” produces the brochure answer. “Walk me through the last significant decision you made” produces the real one — who proposed it, who objected, how long it took, and whether anyone can remember.

Ask about a reversal. A group that has never revisited a decision either makes flawless ones or does not really review. The second is far more likely, and it is the failure mode that turns a temporary measure into a permanent rule.

Watch a meeting if they will let you. Not for the content — for who speaks, who does not, who interrupts, who decides when it is over, and whether the person facilitating is also arguing.

Ask a newer member. Someone in their first year will tell you how the process felt to learn. Someone in their twelfth has forgotten there was anything to learn.

What to ask on a visit

Sources & further reading

1. 1 Ostrom, E. — Governing the Commons (1990) — the eight design principles and the evidence behind them
2. 2 RCOS Core — Layer 2: Governance & Decision Logic — the specification this lesson explains in plain language
3. 3 Sociocracy For All — circles, domains and consent, for groups without shareholders
4. 4 Seeds for Change — free, practical consensus and facilitation guides

Written by EcoHubs members, with AI assistance for drafting and editing, and reviewed by a person before publication. Facts are checked against the sources listed; anything we could not verify is marked. How this is written