I got an interesting proposal from Bill Saur for realising RTs in open source projects:

The process is continuously focused around a single proposal - this is a critical point. Initially, someone puts forth a proposal to solve the problem under consideration and by submitting the proposal they become the "moderator" i.e. the person who is now responsible for overseeing the decision making process for this proposal.

People discuss the proposal and then eventually each member of the group is polled in turn as to agreement or disagreement. No discussion, just "do you agree or disagree with this proposal?. If you have a lot of people disagreeing, then a new proposal is probably in order. If so. then the discussion and polling process repeats this time centered around the new proposal. Eventually you are likely to reach a situation where only 1 or 2 people disagree.

When that happens the current moderator asks these people in turn the following two questions "What is the specific source of your disagreement" and also "What changes would need to be made to the proposal to cause you to agree with it?" Once these answers are on the table someone can make a new proposal centered around their objections and changes and the process continues.

Sometimes you will reach the point where 1 or 2 people disagree and then changes are made and then different people subsequently disagree. That can be okay because now you are able to see clearly the points of contention and you can focus your discussions in these areas. Assuming everyone is patient and open-minded and basically acting for the common good, eventually a consensus can be reached. So there you have it.

11:20:54 AM