XR UK Ways of Working and Constitution

How rebels in XR UK work together. 1. The Principles and Values are the core propositions that we need to commit to in order to act in the name of XR. 2. The Ways of Working guide how we relate to each other in all teams across the UK. 3. The Constitution sets out how we agree to organise and make decisions when acting at scale (i.e. not just locally) in the UK. This is known as our Self-Organising System (SOS). Within the UK, the nations and regions choose whether to follow the XR UK Constitution or their own version of decentralising and self-organising. All groups within the UK Rebel Hive follow the Constitution.

Principles and Values

Full-length text of the Principles and Values written in 2018.

Anyone who takes action in pursuit of XR's three goals and adheres to its ten principles, can claim to do it in the name of XR.

1. We have a shared vision of changeOur duty is to create a world fit for the next seven generations to live in. Our hearts tell us a different world is possible. Our vision of change is sufficiently broad that it can contain a variety of opinions on how best to work towards that change:

"A healthy, beautiful world, where individuality and creativity are supported, and where people work together, solving problems and finding meaning, with courage, power and love. This will be underpinned by cultures rooted in respect for nature, genuine freedoms and justice.”

2. We set our mission on what is necessary

The change needed is huge and yet achievable. No regime in the 20th century managed to stand against an uprising which had the active participation of up to 3.5% of the population (see Erica Chenoweth’s research). In the UK, this would mean mobilising around 2 million people in order to oversee a rapid change in wealth distribution and power structures, preventing a rich elite from perpetuating a self-serving ideology.

We acknowledge that we are in the midst of a massive crisis, one which can be hard to comprehend and cope with. We are experiencing the 6th mass species extinction and we are not taking adequate steps to avert our civilisation from the most horrendous trajectory of climate change. The world is deeply unequal, with wealth and power levers concentrated in a small minority. We have crises in our mental and physical health, including our children, based in different forms of malnutrition and an increasingly toxic environment. We live with the threat of pandemics alongside antibiotic failure. Our financial system is destined for another crisis bigger than the last. There is a global culture of conquering “others”, of competition, of revenge and of terrorism.

We recognise that our job may be less about “saving the world” and more about trying to develop our resilience as multiple collapses take places. We are based in the UK and we love this part of the world deeply. We are focussed on significant change here towards:

We can focus on symptoms of this toxic system, yet we also we take opportunities to point out that full system change is needed. We also focus on the pillars that keep the current neo-liberal system in place:

3. We need a regenerative culture

A regenerative human culture is healthy, resilient and adaptable; it cares for the planet and it cares for life in the awareness that this is the most effective way to create a thriving future for all of humanity. Regenerative culture means improvements year on year, taking small steps to heal and improve, and on all levels, including individuals, communities, our soil, water and air. More than being a network of “activists”, we seek to find ways of being and doing that support positive change. This can include ceremony and prayer (in ways that are neither dogmatic nor expected) as formats to find inspiration from things bigger than ourselves. We need to reconnect with our love for ourselves, our country and our people alongside wider neighbours; people and the natural world.

Regenerative culture includes a healthy focus on mutually supporting categories of:

It's about relationships. Our relationships with ourselves and personal histories, our relationships with what we struggle against, our relationships with other individuals day to day, and our relationships as a group - these are completely interdependent. Self care is also about taking care of the animal parts of the self that respond instinctively to stressful situations with fight or flight or faint.

4. We openly challenge ourselves and this toxic system

We have a duty to disobey this system which destroys life on earth and is deeply unjust. Some of us will undertake open (“above ground*”) actions that risk arrest and charges. Evidence suggests that such open civil disobedience and direct action are crucial to change (See for example evidence in CounterPower by Tim Gee and This is an Uprising by Engler & Engler). It isn't necessary or required that everyone do this, as for some there are good reasons not to (we ask everyone to take time to be clear on their own circumstances, fears and motivations here). Importantly, our Extinction Rebellion culture should support those of us willing to put ourselves on the line in this way - there are also many support roles that are useful and we need to enable at least 3% of the population to actively participate. We will practice a security culture to the extent that it enables actions to be planned without being intercepted before they are completed. However our civil disobedience and direct actions are in full public light, organisers accept the risks they are taking, and we have issued a “necessity statement” online as to why we believe our actions are justified.

*We appreciate and admire those willing to take “below ground” or “covert” actions to fight for environment and social justice, within other settings. For clarity, and for the safety of those organising in Extinction Rebellion it is important we are clear that all actions taken in the name of Extinction Rebellion are “above ground,” i.e. that they are taken in the open and no below ground actions are taken as Extinction Rebellion.

However we are not just about being out there and taking action, we must also resource all aspects of a regenerative culture and also take time to reflect on whether what we are doing is effective. We might find it challenging to keep a focus on some aspects of this work, including self-care and looking after each other. There can be a pull to do the next thing, to be “active”, but this can lead to burn-out.

There is a value in us making changes in our own lives to reflect the changes needed, such as changing our diets, where we go on holiday and so on (however personal responsibility can be overstated and is based, to some extent, in privilege). For all of these challenges we ask for room, patience and willingness to try new things to see if they support our goals.

5. We value reflecting and learning

We don’t know how things will change so we are willing to experiment and learn from what we do. Through ongoing questioning, reflection and learning about what has worked elsewhere we will improve what we do and not get stuck in repetitive behaviour. This is an active and ongoing process, requiring time and input for individuals and groups to think about what has gone well and why, what would be better to be done differently.

6. We welcome everyone and every part of everyone

As a movement we are committed to campaigning for the right to life, and for the future life of our children and the planet. We recognise that in order to change the world, we must change the way we think about and form relationships with those we work and ally ourselves with. The world is currently defined by multiple hierarchies of race, class, gender, sexuality, etc. For those lower down these hierarchies, much of the world isn't a safe space. To create safer spaces we need to work actively to continuously build understandings of how these hierarchies operate, so that we can challenge them and build inclusion through making our spaces more accessible. Therefore, for our movement to be safe for everyone, it needs to be safe for the most marginalised.

This principle includes a commitment to making safer spaces to support inclusivity. It is our goal that every individual is welcomed regardless of ethnicity, race, class, gender, gender identity, gender presentation, sexuality, age, income, ability, education, appearance, immigration status, belief or non-belief and activist experience. Every individual in the movement is responsible for creating and maintaining safer, compassionate and welcoming spaces. New people to the movement need to be explicitly welcomed. A simple starting point is adherence to these core principles.

Physical violence or the incitement of violence towards others is not accepted. Discriminatory behaviour, language or behaviour that exhibits racial domination, sexism, anti-semitism, islamophobia, homophobia, ableism, class discrimination, prejudice around age and all other forms of oppression including abusive language towards others, either during an action or elsewhere, is not accepted whether physically or online

We also recognise that we are complex beings and exhibit many different parts of ourselves at different times and in different circumstances. For example, sometimes we might be caring, at other times judgemental, and at other times carelessly reactive. Some of those parts are parts of us that we’re happy to bring, and some of those parts are parts that we’re struggling with, or perhaps not even aware they existed until they revealed themselves. With this knowledge, we approach each other from a place of compassion, and encourage each other to increase our own self-awareness.

7. We actively mitigate power

The ground on which this network stands is on the relationships between its participants. We will work every day to build trust, respect and reciprocity among all of us. We assume all members to have good intentions and will react against disrespect. We use conflict resolution techniques to deal with conflict in a healthy way that will bring growth to our movement. We ground our work in dialogue, healing, collective transformation and justice. We won’t tolerate shaming of each other or bullying in any form. This requires us to be honest and clear with ourselves and each other; we all hold prejudices and biases, and these must be acknowledged rather than dwelled upon negatively. It is everyone’s responsibility to change destructive habits and behaviours.

We recognise that our world as it stands is currently structured by various intersecting hierarchies based on class, race, gender, sexuality, (dis)ability and so on. As such each person's experience is shaped by their position within these various social hierarchies. For instance, being a black woman one encounters different forms of oppression to a white woman, because of how race and gender combine and compound to shape experiences.

Whilst we aim to live in a world where these hierarchies no longer exist, we cannot simply pretend that they don't within our own network. For this reason we aim to centre voices that are normally the most marginalised, by allowing space for them to speak and encouraging those who normally wouldn't to take leadership / coordination positions. This isn't about deciding 'who is the most oppressed', it's about consciously making space for the people who have to fight the most to be heard, recognised and respected.

In practical terms this means: - We weight coordinating roles towards marginalised groups. - Our media messaging includes issues and voices that are normally ignored (e.g. the link between climate change and immigration detention centres). However we are mindful of not trying to speak on someone else’s behalf. - Accessibility is important (in terms of child care, wheelchair access, not speaking in technical jargon), both for meetings and actions. - We recognise that oppressive behaviours are socially embedded within us, and privileged people are asked to commit to questioning their privilege and to be open to being challenged. - We refresh those who hold positions of responsibility so that power doesn’t get entrenched. - We embed anti-oppressive practice into our training materials. - Our strategy is focussed on doing the work it takes to forge genuine alliances with the grass roots movements of the people who are most marginalised. - We also recognise that sometimes people make mistakes, misjudgements and missteps, and we seek to avoid humiliating exposure when it is clear that an issue needs to be raised and dealt with.

Having a database, social media and a website; fundraising for meetings, etc, means that there is inevitably a centralisation of some power. To mitigate any power issues that can arise we have an Anchor Circle, whose role is transparent and into which there is a process for people to rotate in and out.

Thinking about these questions is encouraged: If you always do a role, is it possible to train someone else to do it? If someone else is taking leadership on a role, can you learn from them so that you can step in? Can you challenge yourself to take on a more upfront role if this is something you don’t usually do? Do you take time to learn about power and privilege? Do you have an understanding of how the power and privilege you hold has an effect on other people and the movement you are part of?

8. We avoid blaming and shaming

Blaming and shaming will not serve us in the long run. Whilst a specific campaign may seek to highlight the damaging role played by an institution, including individuals serving that institution, our starting point is that we live in toxic system that has damaged everybody. We can point out behaviour that is unhelpful, exploitative or abusive, and we won’t tolerate such behaviour, yet we don't hand away our love or power by blaming and shaming. This is also true in our interpersonal and group dynamics as well as our relationship to ourselves.

We embrace change that creates unity in diversity; we need to set right the relationships between us, avoiding the interpersonal traps that come from games we may inadvertently play and bringing awareness to the structures that would divide us. We accept that emotion sometimes needs to be expressed, that a period of venting can be necessary. We ask each other for good grace in how we share emotion and to return to a baseline of love, respect and conviviality. We need to be compassionate when mistakes are made. Mistakes are opportunities to learn. We look for ways to connect and understand. Listening deeply to each other is a powerful tool. We especially need to listen to those of us that come from groups whose voices tend to be silenced.

9. We are a nonviolent network

Non-violence keeps our movement alive. We use non-violence to reveal the true perpetrators of systemic violence that people suffer from daily all over this world. It is our strategy to bring light to the injustice that too many suffer each day. We feel pain from the abuses of the police and others, and we will keep exposing their violence through our discipline. Non-violence has unequivocally been demonstrated to be an effective tool in mass mobilisations (see the work of Gene Sharp and Erica Chenoweth) and so we base a cornerstone of our movement on this.

At the same time we also recognise that many people and movements in the world face death, displacement and abuse in defending what is theirs. We will not condemn those who justly defend their families and communities through the use of force, especially as we must also recognise that it is often our privilege which keeps us safe. We stand in solidarity with those whom have no such privilege to protect them and therefore must protect themselves through violent means; this does not mean we condone all violence, just that we understand in some cases it may be justified. Also we do not condemn other social and environmental movements that choose to damage property in order to protect themselves and nature, for example disabling a fracking rig or putting a detention centre out of action. Our network, however, will not undertake significant property damage because of risks to other participants by association.

10. We are based on autonomy and decentralisation

We recognise that we can’t look to government to solve the world’s problems. It tends to concentrate power and wealth in the hands of a very privileged few, and often does not have the interests of the majority of people and the natural world at heart. We understand that we must self-organise to meet our own needs, which in the context of Extinction Rebellion means that we are working to equalise power by disrupting the usual pillars of power that govern our lives. In so doing, our intention is to create access to the resources we need, such as democratic structures that ensure everyone has a voice and an influence, information that comes without the bias of the rich and powerful, decent healthcare, education, social care and housing, clean energy production, and protections in law to prevent ecocide.

Any person or group can organise autonomously around the issues that feel most pressing for them, and take action in the name and spirit of Extinction Rebellion - so long as the action fits within Extinction Rebellion’s principles and values. In this way, power is decentralised, meaning that there is no need to ask for permission from a central group or authority. We also promote the ideas of “holacracy” over consensus:

At the same time, as a network, Extinction Rebellion self-organises to provide for the needs of the people participating within it, working to provide training in strategic action for change, educating ourselves and each other around issues of power, privilege and how to decolonise, creating better accessibility, caring for our emotional needs in relation to working together, and making time for connection and fun.

Ways of Working

Our approach, skills and capacities as we volunteer in XR UK

Table of Contents

1. Our shared understandings

2. Ways to be around each other

3. How to approach working together

1. Our shared understandings

What volunteering with XR UK involves

How we make XR UK a regenerative space where all rebels can take part equitably

How we mitigate power and distribute decision-making

2. Ways to be around each other

We listen to each other, and speak and act mindfully

We work in groups productively and support each other

We treat people and their personal information with respect

More than just resistance, we are building regenerative cultures

3. How to approach working together

We work together in groups (circles/teams)

We are committed and reliable

We run efficient, inclusive and regenerative meetings
Date last revised: 25/06/24
Mandate: Systems and Culture
Contributors: Facilitation, SOS, Principles & Values circles, Disabled Rebels Network, Regenerative Cultures, GDPR & Security.
Intended distribution: All rebels
Status: 2024 revision of 2019 original version
Purpose: To articulate the culture of how we work together in XR UK
Timeline: Ongoing
Feedback: SOS reception channel on mattermost or sos@extinctionrebellion.uk

XR UK Constitution

The Self-Organising System

Guiding & Empowering The Rebellion

As updated 17 March 2023

We pursue great demands, but we sometimes make mistakes. We are all crew together, but we often disagree. We want to spread power, but it’s hard to do this and stay coherent as a movement.

This Constitution provides a set of agreements to guide us in making decisions
when we don’t know how.
It is a modest tool in pursuit of immodest goals.

Self-organising keeps us agile — able to draw on collective wisdom,
but free from unnecessary interference.
It cannot guarantee success, but it reduces the chances of us falling out.

This Constitution will not lead us to heaven;
but we hope it may continue to save the movement from hell!

Rebels gather among mulit-coloured XR flags

Contents

A. Introduction
B. Basic Principles
C. The Self-Organising System

  1. XR UK Organism
  2. Roles Within A Circle
  3. Sub-circles
  4. Policies & Domains
  5. Choosing Role-Holders
  6. Joining A Circle & Asking People To Leave
  7. How To Make Decisions
  8. Meetings
  9. Record-Keeping

Rebels listen, some smiling and clapping, to a speaker or performer out of picture

A. Introduction — What this is, who it’s for, and how it changes

  1. This document defines the Self-Organising System for XR UK.
  2. To achieve our demands and see real progress in tackling the climate and ecological emergencies, we need our movement to work rapidly and effectively. The Self-Organising System replaces traditional ways of organising. It empowers rebel teams to make decisions independently within agreed parameters. Through this system the movement entrusts groups with the responsibility to make the best decisions they can so that we can all be successful.
  3. The Constitution was created using many of the principles of Holacracy, and was formally adopted by XR UK’s Anchor Circle in March 2019. (The Anchor Circle has since been replaced by The Rebel Hive.) This update was prepared by the SOS circle in response to feedback from the movement, and adopted by The Rebel Hive on 17th March 2023.
  4. The rules in this Constitution apply to everyone in the same way — there are no privileged classes, no exceptions.
  5. The rules appear in bold text, explanations and recommendations in plain text.
  6. All circles and roles contained within The Rebel Hive and its sub-circles are bound by the XR UK Constitution. Other groups are not bound by the Constitution, but may choose to adopt it, or parts of it, if they wish to.
  7. It’s not complete or perfect. It’s always a work in progress, which will evolve as needed.
  8. If you have any feedback about how the Self-Organising System is working in XR UK, or you need training or support with using the System in your group or circle, then do please message the XR UK Self-Organising System circle on Mattermost or via email.
  9. Minor changes to this document may be made by the SOS circle. Any significant changes must be approved by both The Rebel Hive and the SOS circle, using the Integrative Decision Making process.

B. Basic Principles

  1. The Self-Organising System is designed to enable groups to act quickly and be responsive to fast-changing situations when needed, and at the same time integrate the wisdom of multiple perspectives when helpful.
  2. The System is based on distributed authority — groups and individuals within groups are given the authority and the responsibility to make decisions and do things by clear mandates that are created and agreed upon by the wider team.
  3. This means that we only use group decision-making when it’s needed, and not for everything. (Group decision-making can take a lot of time and energy.)
  4. The design of the System ensures that everyone can see who is doing what, and it promotes communication between related teams so that we can work with a common purpose across a large number of groups.
  5. The System helps us embody two of our Principles and Values: that we are based on autonomy and decentralisation; and that we actively mitigate power.

C. The Self-Organising System

1. XR UK Organism — How it all fits together

a. XR UK is a movement of groups and teams working autonomously in different parts of the country, or on different kinds of project.

b. Throughout this document we use the word circle to refer to any collection of rebels who are bound by this Constitution and have come together in a group or team to work with a common purpose. (This is often called a Working Group.)

c. Representatives from circles come together in broader circles, to share information and coordinate activities. And any circle can also create sub-circles to which it can delegate some of its work. The result is a series of circles sitting within one another like a set of Russian dolls.

d. For example, The Rebel Hive is currently the broadest UK-wide circle. It contains representatives from all the regional and national circles of the UK. It has delegated some of its work and responsibility to the Operations Circle, which in turn has delegated some of its work and responsibility to the Media & Messaging Circle. You can see what this looks like in the overall picture of circles.

e. Each circle must have its own mandate which will be defined by:-

f. The mandate defines what the circle is expected to do or create, and the scope that it must operate within.

g. Advice on how to write mandates can be found in Mandates In More Detail, together with some examples.

h. Each circle is self-governing within its mandate. This means that it’s up to them how they work within their area of responsibility.

i. A sub-circle is also a part of the broader circle. This means they are accountable to that circle for the work that they do, and will need to prioritise their activity as requested.

j. A member of each sub-circle attends meetings of the broader circle. This is to ensure that information flows in both directions and that issues are addressed at the appropriate level.

k. All XR UK rebels can view a map of the XR UK organism on the Hub.

l. All decision-making authority sits with the broadest circle until delegated to the mandate of another role or circle.

m. Projects may emerge which don’t easily fit into the existing system; for example, a project which involves people from multiple circles. In this case, it is recommended that one role takes the lead on the project, and creates an ad-hoc project team to do the work with people from wherever relevant.

2. Roles Within A Circle — Creating responsibility for getting things done

b. Roles must be created or amended using the Integrative Decision Making (IDM) process, and given a written mandate with the elements described in 1e.

c. When a circle defines a mandate for a role, the authority for whatever is included in that mandate is devolved from the circle to the role. This means decisions about whatever falls within the mandate are no longer taken at a circle level, but instead are made by the role-holder.

d. Role-holders remain bound by this Constitution, and the policies of their role, circle and broader circles, and will need to get permission to impact the domain of any other role or circle.

e. They have authority within the limits of their mandate, but must align their work with the priorities set by the Internal Coordinator of their circle.

f. If, in order to fulfil the purpose of their role, a role-holder wants to act outside their accountabilities, they must seek authority from anyone who has an existing mandate with accountabilities that cover that work. (If no mandate already exists, then it may be helpful to create one.)

g. Role-holders are accountable to their circle. The Internal Coordinator must ask them to give regular updates on their work, and invite other circle members periodically to offer feedback or voice any concerns they may have from the perspective of their role. It is recommended that this is made a routine part of the cycle of the circle’s meetings, and is not left until there is a specific problem or difficulty that needs attention.

h. At a minimum, each circle must appoint an Internal Coordinator, to be responsible for the healthy functioning of the circle, an External Coordinator, responsible for liaising with the next broadest circle, and a Group Admin, responsible for making the circle and its roles visible to the rest of the movement.

i. If no-one is appointed to the Group Admin role, then the Internal Coordinator will hold this role until the vacancy is filled.

j. The mandates for these roles are defined in Working Group Core Roles, and may not be changed. Other suggested roles that may be useful can be found in Working Group Template Roles. The mandate of the Internal Coordinator may be shared between two or more people, if that makes it easier to do.

k. Each circle may define other roles in whatever way serves their work. But mandates for roles must always form part of the existing mandate of the circle creating them.

l. A role may be dissolved by the circle using the Integrative Decision Making process. The role-holder will be included in the decision.

3. Sub-circles — Increasing effectiveness and de-centralisation

a. When you have too many people attending meetings of a circle, it may be more effective to divide the work between sub-circles.

b. All decisions to create a sub-circle, amend its mandate, move or dissolve it, must be made by the broader circle using the Integrative Decision Making process.

c. The mandate of a sub-circle must form part of the existing mandate of the broader circle, and cannot already form part of the mandate of another sub-circle.

d. To create a new sub-circle —
i. The broader circle must define and consent to the sub-circle’s mandate.
ii. The broader circle may also delegate part or all of a domain it owns to the new sub-circle.
iii. The broader circle will then elect the new Internal Coordinator of the sub-circle and ask them to decide what roles will be needed and how to fill them.

e. The broader circle has a responsibility to support the work of its sub-circles to ensure they are functioning healthily, and also to review their work and hold them accountable.

f. If there is disagreement between two sub-circles over how to manage something, they must take the issue to the broader circle for resolution.

g. Sub-circles are accountable for delivering their work within the limits of their mandate, and have authority to decide how they do so. They must align their work with the priorities set by the Internal Coordinator of the broader circle and the XR UK Strategy. The Internal Coordinator may prioritise one aspect of the work of a sub-circle over another, but they may not indicate how that work should be done.

h. If, in order to fulfil its purpose, a sub-circle wants to act outside its accountabilities, it must seek authority from anyone who has an existing mandate with accountabilities that cover that work. (If no mandate already exists, then it may be helpful for the broader circle to create one.)

i. The External Coordinator of a sub-circle is responsible for sharing the strategy and work of the broader circle with their circle, so that the work of the sub-circle aligns with that broader strategy.

k. The mandate of a sub-circle may only be changed by the broader circle. The sub-circle’s External Coordinator will be included in the decision.

l. If the broader circle is unhappy with the way in which a sub-circle is fulfilling its mandate, the first step will normally be to offer feedback to the sub-circle’s External Coordinator. If this doesn’t allow the issue to be resolved, then a Tension Shifting process may be appropriate.

m. A sub-circle may be dissolved by the broader circle. The sub-circle’s External Coordinator will be included in the decision.

n. If a sub-circle is dissolved its mandate will return to the broader circle, and its members will no longer have roles or mandates. The broader circle may wish to draw on the experience of some members of the sub-circle, by inviting them to join the broader circle, but there is no obligation to do so.

o. Sometimes it may be necessary to move a sub-circle into a different broader circle. (This will not often be appropriate, as the mandate of a sub-circle must always be a delegated part of the mandate of its broader circle.) When it is appropriate to do so, the correct procedure is to move the sub-circle and its mandate into the broadest circle from which it can then be devolved into its new position (using the Integrative Decision Making (IDM) process).

4. Policies & Domains — Preventing it all falling apart

a. A system which only has authority distributed into roles and circles could easily create chaos and fragmentation, if there was nothing to constrain the distributed authority and create alignment when needed.

b. A policy is a specific expectation which either grants or restricts authority beyond the mandates of roles and circles.

c. For example, the last sentence of the Introduction to this Constitution (A9) creates a policy about who can update it.

d. Policies must be created using the Integrative Decision Making process, and be communicated with all sub-circles that they affect.

e. A policy that is created by a circle applies to all people, work and roles within that circle and any of its sub-circles, but not outside of that circle. For it to apply outside of the circle that created it, it would need to be adopted by a broader circle.

f. Where there is a conflict between two policies that have the same scope, the more recent policy will override the earlier one.

g. The Constitution overrides any previously existing policies that conflict with it, and may not be over-ridden by a new policy, but only amended in the way that is specified in A9 above.

h. A domain gives responsibility for a resource or process to a particular role or circle. It may refer to something tangible, like a sound system or a bank account, or to a procedure, like posting to a social media page or liaising with the police.

i. All resources and processes are the domain of the broadest circle until they’ve been specifically delegated to another role or circle.

j. Role-holders and circles need to get permission to impact the domain of any other role or circle.

k. Domains form part of the mandate of a role or circle, and must be posted on The Communications Hub, where rebels can see them.

l. Any creation or delegation of a domain must be communicated to all the circles that may need to be made aware.

5. Choosing Role-Holders — Who has power and how to challenge them

a. The simplest way to decide who fills roles within a circle is to let circle members volunteer for the roles they want to fill. Where this option is used, the facilitator must check that there are no objections to the appointment from other members of the circle (see the Integrative Decision Making process below).

b. Where a role holds a lot of power, or needs meaningful expertise, or if there are more volunteers than are needed, any member of the circle may ask for the appointment to be made by election.

c. The Internal and External Coordinators of a circle must always be appointed by election.

d. There are two options for electing someone to a role:

e. Both options allow the whole circle to reflect on what is required and who would best fill the need.

f. Whichever method is used, first the mandate of the role, the term of the appointment, and the qualities required to do it well are reviewed and agreed by the circle. Anyone may ask questions to clarify what is intended.

g. The Integrative Election Process is as follows:

h. More information about the Integrative Election Process can be found in Integrative Election Process for Roles in XR UK.

i. The Integrative Election Process may be used in a shortened form with the consent of the circle.

j. The process for a considered majority vote is as follows:

k. More information about the process for a considered majority vote can be found in Considered Majority Vote for Roles in XR UK.

l. The process for a considered majority vote may be used in a shortened form with the consent of the circle.

m. It may be appropriate to conduct some of either process in the candidates’ absence, so that objections can be voiced more candidly.

n. The appointment becomes effective once it is recorded on The Communications Hub by the Group Admin.

o. Role-holders must be appointed for fixed terms, which must be agreed before their appointment.

p. Internal and External Coordinators must serve a maximum term of 6 months, so that elections are held at least every 6 months for these roles. This ensures that authority within a circle is refreshed at regular intervals, and allows for fresh ideas to keep things from becoming stuck. A Coordinator may stand for re-election at the end of their term. This allows for continuity and gives people time to grow into their roles.

q. The Internal Coordinator of a circle keeps track of when re-elections need to be held.

r. In some cases it may be appropriate for a single role to be filled by more than one person.

s. Where a large number of people are being elected to fill a role, it may be helpful to use a different election method such as single transferable votes.

t. Any member of the circle may call for an election for any role-holder at any time.

u. The External Coordinator of a circle must call for an election for Internal Coordinator at the request of the broader circle they sit on.

v. The Internal Coordinator of a circle may attend a meeting of one of its sub-circles to call for an election for its External Coordinator. They have the right to object to the person the sub-circle elects.

w. If a role-holder wants to step down before the end of their term, they must let their Internal Coordinator know, so that someone else may be appointed, or the mandate withdrawn.

6. Joining A Circle & Asking People To Leave — Keeping things healthy

a. To be a member of a circle, all rebels must agree to act in alignment with XR’s Demands and Principles & Values and this Constitution. They must read and agree to our Ways of Working and our Volunteer Agreement, and agree to work for the mandate of their circle.

b. To join a circle, rebels must be invited by the circle’s Internal Coordinator on the basis of a clear fit between work that needs to be done and their skills and abilities. Anyone may suggest someone be considered, and potential new members may be invited to attend a meeting as an observer as part of that consideration.

c. In this system authority is earned — people earn the right to be a member of a circle and attend meetings by actively filling a role and working on at least one project for the circle. This prevents meetings being clogged up by people attending and sharing their views about how things should be done when they aren’t actually involved in any work.

d. The Internal Coordinator of a circle must keep the Group Admin informed of all changes in circle membership, to enable records and communication channels to be kept up to date. The Internal Coordinator may decide whether someone is or remains a member of the circle, by considering whether they do any regular work for the circle and attend meetings when needed. (If there is any doubt about this, then the Internal Coordinator must follow the steps outlined in 6f to 6i below.)

e. Conflict within circles can be difficult to manage. This can lead to people withdrawing from their work, or even the movement. It can sometimes also be a rich source of creativity and strength, if handled well.

f. If it becomes apparent to the circle’s Internal Coordinator that a circle member is:

g. Then the following steps must be taken:

h. The circle and circle member may agree to do one of the following:

i. If a resolution can’t be reached after two or more reasonable attempts have been made, the Internal Coordinator may ask the circle to vote on whether to exclude the circle member from the circle.

7. How To Make Decisions — Moving things forward together

a. The following ways of making decisions must be used for the following situations:-

— Decisions to create or amend policies or mandates for roles & sub-circles

b. These decisions must always be made collectively in meetings, because the views of the whole circle need to be integrated when distributing authority. Collective decisions may be made at any formal meeting of a circle. There are no attendee or quorum restrictions, but all circle members must be given reasonable notice of the meeting and enough time to consider the proposal.

c. Any member of the circle may bring a proposal. An invited guest may bring a proposal, with the agreement of the circle.

d. Proposals must explain the need that the proposal is seeking to address and how the proposal will help to meet that need. (A guide to writing proposals is contained in A Guide To Writing Proposals.)

e. If the Internal Coordinator of the circle is not convinced that the proposal addresses a genuine need, or thinks that there may be a better way to address it, they may speak to the proposer before it is brought to a meeting.

f. The facilitator must use the following Integrative Decision Making (IDM) process:

g. For what seems to be a minor or non-contentious proposal the following short version of this process may be used instead:

h. More support for considering whether objections meet the criteria of the Integrative Decision Making process can be found in Objection Testing.

i. This process will not normally be used to make operational decisions, as these will be made by the role-holders with the relevant mandates.

j. As a last resort, if the process above has been tried without arriving at a decision, and there is either:

then the decision may be made by simple majority vote. Where there are more than two options being considered, circle members must be asked to indicate all the options they could work with, and the option that most members can work with will be chosen. This is different from asking people which is their preferred option, and allows the option that the fewest people have difficulty with to be selected.

k. If the vote is tied, then a casting vote is made by the circle’s External Coordinator. If the External Coordinator isn’t present, then the casting vote passes to the Internal Coordinator. If neither Coordinator is present then one person is chosen at random to give the casting vote.

— Decisions where a role has been given a mandate

l. All role-holders may make decisions about any issues covered by their mandate. These decisions are made outside of meetings.

m. Where a decision is fairly straightforward, won’t greatly affect others, or needs to be made quickly, a role-holder may make that decision entirely on their own.

n. A role-holder may not make a decision that goes against a policy of their role, the circle or its broader circles, breaks a rule in the Constitution, or clearly violates XR’s Principles and Values or Volunteer Agreement. They will need to get permission before impacting domains that they do not own (see 4j above).

o. Where a decision is likely to be more contentious or affect other roles or circles, and there is enough time to do so, a role-holder must consult other people who will be meaningfully affected, as well as those with relevant expertise.

p. The idea is to create transparency, and collect input proportional to the impact of the decision, not require unnecessary delay or a burdensome number of meetings. The precise balance of how much or how little feedback to seek is up to the role-holder to decide.

q. Once they have heard all the advice and perspectives they have received, the role-holder decides on what they believe to be the best course of action. The point is not to create a watered-down compromise that accommodates everybody’s wishes, it is about accessing collective wisdom in pursuit of a sound decision.

r. More information on how to use this Advice Process can be found in The Advice Process.

— All other decisions

s. If a circle is set up correctly with clear role-holders, there will rarely be anything that doesn’t fall into the two categories above. For any other decision which falls within the circle’s mandate and is not covered by a specific role, the facilitator may decide which decision-making process to use. For example, they may:

t. Suggestions on how to choose which process to use can be found in On The Streets Decision Making Guide.

— Who decides?

u. Every full member of a circle (see 6d above) who is present at the relevant meeting may play a part in collective decision-making processes.

v. Role-holders must represent the perspective of their role, not their personal opinions; and External Coordinators must represent the mandate of their sub-circle, not the opinions of its members.

w. If the External Coordinator of a sub-circle is unable to attend a meeting, they may nominate another member of the sub-circle to attend in their place. The Internal Coordinator of the broader circle must be informed before the meeting.

x. If a sub-circle has elected joint External Coordinators, then only one of them may attend any particular meeting of the broader circle (unless the broader circle agrees otherwise), and only one of them may participate in the decision-making processes.

y. Anyone present as an observer does not take part.

z. In the case of a vote, each member of a circle has one vote, regardless of how many roles they hold.

aa. Where a circle contains link roles from other circles (not the External Coordinators of its own sub-circles), they will not take part in the circle’s collective decision-making unless that is specifically agreed by the circle, either at the time of the role’s creation, or in relation to a specific decision.

bb. More information on link roles and how to create them can be found in An Introduction To Link Roles and the Hive Policy on Link Roles .

cc. Where a decision does not fall within the circle’s mandate it will need to be taken to a broader circle for consideration.

8. Meetings — Making them more efficient and enjoyable

b. Every meeting needs a facilitator, who may be an appointed role-holder, or someone who volunteers at the start of the meeting. It may be helpful to rotate who facilitates from meeting to meeting, unless someone has been appointed to the role. Where possible it is recommended that Coordinators do not facilitate meetings. Support and training for facilitators is available from the XRUK Facilitation circle and Rebellion Academy.

c. Good facilitation will support rebels who don’t know how the Self-Organising System works to contribute their energy and ideas.

d. Some circles create the agenda in advance. Others build it at the start of the meeting.

e. Meetings work better and are shorter if circle members prepare clear reports and proposals in advance. A guide on how to write proposals can be found in A Guide To Writing Proposals.

f. A successful meeting will strike a balance between operational issues (who’s doing what) and governance questions (how we choose to manage things).

h. The facilitator may require circle members to speak from their role rather than their personal perspective, to help to keep the meeting effective and prevent it turning into a general discussion.

i. Minutes and meeting outputs, including the terms of any elected roles and the review dates of all policy decisions, must be kept somewhere all circle members can view them.

j. All circle members are entitled to attend meetings of the circle, but there’s no obligation for them to be present at every meeting.

k. There is no required quorum or number of people for a circle meeting to happen. It happens with whoever shows up, unless otherwise specified in a policy that a certain number or mix of people are required to be there for a meeting to be quorate. However, whoever schedules the meeting must give reasonable notice to all circle members before a meeting takes place.

l. With the agreement of the circle, a circle member may invite someone who isn’t a member of the circle to attend a meeting, as a guest, to address a specific issue. The guest may only participate for the processing of that issue and will not take part in any decision-making.

m. With the agreement of the circle, someone may be invited to attend a circle meeting as an observer. Observers do not participate in the meeting unless invited to do so by the facilitator, and do not take part in decision-making processes.

9. Record-Keeping — Creating transparency & improving communication

a. Every circle within XR UK must publish and maintain an up to date profile on The Communications Hub, including:

We all want to see real and urgent change in meeting the climate and ecological emergencies.

May this Self-Organising System empower us to be
the most effective movement we can be!

a speaker with a loud hailer addresses a large gathering of rebels on hte steps of Trafalgar Square, London

This version was revised from a version originally created by Nick Osborne at evolvingorganisation.co. You are free to copy it subject to these licence terms.

Constitution resources

Supplementary guidance that is referenced in the XR UK Constitution

Constitution resources

Constitution Roles, Policies & Support

Core role mandates

The mandates for the Core Roles are defined by the Constitution (see section C.2 to understand why these are needed) and are the same for all circles.

You can view all the Core Role mandates on the organism. Click the ⨁ next to each role to see its mandate.

Alternatively, if you have a Hub login, you can see the individual mandates on the Hub:

Template role mandates

These mandates for Template Roles are suggestions which can be used as templates to copy and adapt by any team for their own purposes. Some of them can be used to distribute some of the power in Core Roles, particularly where Coordinator roles get overloaded in busy teams. For example, the Integrator/recruiter role helps build the team, relieving the Internal Coordinator of this part of their role.

Elections and appointments to roles

Key Policies

Agreements

Guidance

See the SOS: Making it work for you book for the main guidance on practical self-organising.

Specifically on the Constitution, there is a Constitution Companion which provides an explainer in simple language

Training

Constitution resources

Integrative Election Process for Roles in XR UK

[Note: this guidance is referred to by Section C.5 of the XR UK Constitution.]

1. Discuss the role

The facilitator makes space for questions. Explain the purpose, domains and accountabilities where necessary. This may include, for example, what led to the creation of the role, and the key relationships with other roles and circles.

Make sure that everyone is clear on

Set a term for the appointment. For Internal and External Coordinator appointments, the maximum term is six months. Otherwise, the term is typically three, six or twelve months.

2. Gauge interest from people

Who has capacity for the role? Whose passions might it engage?

If it appears that there may be only one candidate for the role, slow down and triple check that nobody else is interested. You might say something like "If we could offer any kind of support, what support might you need to take on a role like this?"

Make sure to encourage people who may not be confident enough to consider the role by listening first to those not already in the role - this gives your circle a chance to reflect on the importance of rotating role-holders and allowing people to experience different responsibilities.

For people on the edge of interest or who might love to do the role but don't have capacity you could say "what support might you need to take on this role?”.

For people who don't consider themselves available or suitable for the role, but who could be effective in it, might they take confidence from the support of others and the clearing of any blockages?

3. Make nominations

There are two rounds of nominations.

You can nominate yourself or anyone in your team.

  1. In the first round each person gives a reason for their nomination (for example, "I nominated this rebel because they have good relationships with the people they'll need to work with, and a strong grasp of the strategy as it has evolved"). No one may abstain or nominate multiple people for the same role in the first round.

  2. In the second round each person makes a nomination again, having heard and reflected on each other's explanations (it’s ok to stick with your first choice). No one may abstain in the second round, but nominations for multiple people may be permitted, if this has emerged in discussion of the first round. If anyone has changed their mind, they should give a reason for their new nomination.

The intent of this process is to share reasoning, but people may decline to justify their nominations if they feel strongly. They may not comment on anyone else's nominations.

4. Make a proposal and check for consent

Guided by the number of nominations, together with the reasons given for them and the needs of the role (from Step 1), the facilitator makes a proposal for who to appoint.

If appropriate, the proposal may include sharing the role between more than one appointee.

The facilitator then establishes whether everyone consents to the proposal. This includes the appointee(s), who should be asked last.

Seeking consent may sometimes be straightforward if there is a high degree of consensus.

If it is more contentious, then reviewing and refining the proposal should follow the Integrative Decision Making process. It may be that the proposal has to be modified to integrate any objections.

Once there are no objections to the proposed appointment,

Constitution resources

Considered Majority Vote for Roles in XR UK

[Note: this guidance is referred to by Section C.5 of the XR UK Constitution.]

The steps in the process are:-

  1. The facilitator reads out the mandate of the role.

  2. The term of the appointment is agreed by the team (normally 3 or 6 months).

  3. Anyone willing to stand for the role comes forward or someone else does on their behalf. Nominations can also be made for people who have not put themselves forward, but who others in the team feel might fit the post well. If nominating someone in this way be careful not to put social pressure on anyone to stand if they are unsure [Note 1].

  4. If possible each candidate has someone speak on their behalf [Note 2]. They explain the positive reasons why their suggested candidate would fit the role well (without commenting on other candidates). If there is no one to speak on behalf of a candidate, they can speak for themselves.

  5. There is a round of clarifying questions for the candidates. These questions can also be responded to by the candidate or others in the team.

  6. A vote is taken. All voting members vote using a secret ballot (private messaging the facilitator if using zoom.)

  7. Everyone is asked if they have any objection to the candidate with the most votes being elected. Objections must be valid under the Constitution. Objections are tested using the Integrative Decision Making objection criteria in the XR UK Constitution section 7 f vi.

  8. If there are valid objections, the facilitator works with the objector and candidate to integrate the objection. This means looking for a solution which removes the objection but which is also acceptable to the candidate. If an objection cannot be integrated a new election is held without including the candidate objected to. The facilitator decides whether this happens in the same meeting or a future meeting.

If there are no objections or if all objections have been integrated, the candidate is elected.

Note 1

If you put someone forward for a role without discussing it with them previously, and the first they hear of it is in front of a group, the social pressure (especially in large circles) can be very strong (even if meant in a kind way). It could push someone into a role for which they are not ready or emotionally in the right place. Encouraging someone to step into leadership can be a positive thing, but it’s recommended that you discuss the idea with the person before the meeting, giving them enough time to consider whether it’s right for them.

Note 2

Candidates speaking for themselves can lead to “campaign speeches” which is a group dynamic we would like to avoid in XR where possible. Having someone else speak for the candidate can mitigate this to a great degree and brings the speaker’s perspective and endorsement as well. This is why wherever possible we recommend the candidates have someone speak on their behalf.

Constitution resources

The Advice Process

[Note: this guidance is referred to by Section C.7 of the XR UK Constitution.]

The Advice Process can be practised in many ways, but they share a common factor, which is that anyone can make any decision within the mandate of their role after seeking advice from

  1. other roles who will be meaningfully affected, and
  2. people with expertise in the matter.

There are two key principles:

In practice, this process proves remarkably effective. It allows anybody to seize the initiative. Power is no longer a zero-sum game. Everyone is powerful via the advice process.

It's not consensus

We often imagine decisions can be made in only two ways: either by a person with authority (someone calls the shots; some people might be frustrated; but at least things get done), or by unanimous agreement (everyone gets a say, but it can be frustratingly slow).

It is a misunderstanding that self-management decisions are made by getting everyone to agree, or even involving everyone in the decision. The advice-seeker should take all relevant advice into consideration, but can still make the decision.

Consensus may sound appealing, but it's not always most effective to give everybody veto power, which effectively leads to 'minority rule'. In the advice process, power and responsibility rest with the mandate to make the decision. Ergo, there is no power to block.

Ownership of the issue stays clearly with the mandate-holder. Convinced she made the best possible decision, she can see things through with enthusiasm, and she can accept responsibility for any mistakes.

The advice process, then, transcends both top-down and consensus-based decision making.

Benefits of the advice process

The advice process allows self-management to flourish. Dennis Bakke, who introduced the practice at the American power-generation company AES (and who wrote two books about it), highlights some important benefits: creating community, humility, learning, better decisions, and fun.

Steps in the advice process

There are a number of steps in the advice process:

  1. Someone notices a problem or opportunity and takes the initiative, or alerts someone better placed to do so.
  2. Prior to a proposal, the decision-maker may seek input to sound out perspectives before proposing action.
  3. The initiator makes a proposal and seeks advice from those affected or those with expertise.
  4. Taking this advice into account, the decision-maker decides on an action and informs those who have given advice.

Forms the advice process can take

Because the advice process involves taking advice from those affected by a decision, it naturally follows that the bigger the decision, the wider the net needs to be cast.

For minor decisions, there may be no need to seek advice. For larger decisions, advice can come through various channels, including one-to-one conversations, meetings, or online communication.

Some organisations have specific types of meeting to support the advice process, or follow formal methods. The Integrative Decision Making process, which XR UK uses for governance decisions, can be seen as a formal variety of advice process. Some organisations choose to have circles made up of representative colleagues who go through the advice process on behalf of the whole organisation.

When decisions affect large numbers, or people who cannot meet physically, the process can be held online.

Equal Experts, a UK network of software consultants, specialising in agile delivery, has written an open playbook to share their ongoing experience of a real-world implementation of the Advice Process (the organisation had approximately 1100 members in 2021).

Underlying mindsets and training

The advice process is a tool that helps decision-making via collective intelligence. Much depends on the spirit in which people approach it. When the advice process is introduced, it might be worthwhile to train colleagues not only in the mechanics but also in the mindset underlying effective use.

The advice process can proceed in several ways, depending on the mindset people bring to it:

Role modelling

Coordinator roles in teams need to be role-models. Successfully distributing authority requires careful, proactive effort. Roles and mandates support this, but Internal and External Coordinators can help further by modelling and demonstrating the advice process in their own decisions. Other team members will take cues from their behaviour.

Modelling and demonstrating can take several forms:

For many of us, unlearning the habit of making all the decisions is hard. It requires commitment and mindfulness. If you find yourself falling into the old pattern, take the opportunity to acknowledge your mistake, and restate the importance of the process. This can turn a mistake into a powerful learning moment. Better habits are formed through repeated practice.

[Note: this text is largely copied, with light adaptation, from a longer one that is part of the Reinventing Organizations Wiki. Copyright belongs to the original creators of that text. [Note: Once we have got more of our resources in order, David as SOS Resource Steward will contact Frederic Laloux to check this is OK. He has been a friend to XR in the past.]]

Constitution resources

Objection testing

[Note: this guidance is referred to by Section C.7 of the XR UK Constitution.]

When a proposal is brought using the Integrative Decision Making process, the facilitator asks each member of the team if they have any objection.

If there is an objection, the facilitator tests it by asking questions to determine whether it is valid within the terms of the Constitution.

Integrative Decision Making aims to integrate all valid objections to a proposal.

To be valid, an objection must meet all of the following criteria, which can be addressed in any order:-

Criterion Valid Not valid
The proposal causes harm - where harm is defined as degrading the ability of the circle to achieve its mandate Is your concern a reason the proposal causes harm? or… … Is your concern that the proposal is unneeded or incomplete?
The proposal limits the objector from achieving the mandate of one of their roles Would the proposal limit one of your roles? or… … Are you trying to help another role or the circle in general?
The objection is created by the proposal and does not exist already Is the harm created by this proposal? or… … Is it already a concern, even if the proposal were dropped?
The objector is reasonably sure the harm will happen or doesn’t consider the proposal safe enough to try Would the proposal necessarily cause the impact? or… … Are you anticipating that this impact will occur? (If "Yes," ask the next question)
Could significant harm happen before we can adapt? or… … Is it safe enough to try, knowing we can revisit it at any time?

If the grounds for objection are that the proposal goes against a policy of the circle or its broader circles, or breaks a rule in the Constitution, or clearly violates XR’s Principles and Values or Volunteer Agreement then the objection is automatically valid.

Facilitating Integration

[Note: Parts of this text are derived and adapted from the Governance Meeting Process published by HolacracyOne with permission, © HolacracyOne, LLC.]

Constitution resources

Decision Making Processes

[Note: this guidance is referred to by Section C.7 of the XR UK Constitution.]

This page includes some basic steps and then details specific decision making processes. It is aimed mainly at facilitators.

These decision making processes are alternatives to Integrative Decision Making (IDM). They can be used in settings where IDM is not required by the Constitution.

A fair process helps to get people on board with a decision that may not be their first choice. If people feel what they care about has been heard and the decision is made for a legitimate reason, they are more likely to accept it and remain engaged with the group. Finding a way to balance a fair process with an efficient one is the fine arts of facilitation!

The overarching approach we recommend taking to decision making is consent based decision making. Consent based decision making is about finding an option that sits within everyone’s range of tolerance (“OK, I can live with it”), not their range of preference (“I love it”). This is because finding a proposal that everyone loves will be really difficult while finding one that everyone can live with will be a lot easier. Let’s go with a proposal that’s good enough, rather than trying to perfect it. Explain this approach to the group before starting the decision making process.

Tips for before starting the process

It’s good to be clear about the type of decision making process that will be used before the process starts. This way people will set their expectations, for example, whether they will have to accept what the majority wants to do or whether the proposal will be changed based on their concerns. Always state the decision making process and give a brief explanation before starting it. Don't get into endless discussions about what process to use, you should decide how to decide as their competent and confident facilitator.

Most decisions are time-bound, especially during rebellions, so decisions have time limits. Getting clear on the time limit before the meeting and stating it at the start will help the group understand why you’re using a specific decision making process, e.g., “the police will make arrests within 5 minutes, so we’re going to do a majority vote”.

1. Fist to Five

Fist to Five is a decision making process which allows people to state more than yes or no. This is very similar to consent except that people can give more nuanced responses. It’s important to people to be able to express dislike, so we need to give them a way of doing it that's not a block. They can state any of the following options:

Fist-to-Five.png Follow the steps for either a meeting or people’s assembly as described above, then:

(Explain the instructions very slowly, maybe even twice. Don’t be rushed yourself or people will feel rushed and they don’t like it.)

  1. Explain the different response options, i.e., the Fist to Five are (“Instead of asking you to vote yes or no, I want you to hold up a number of fingers:
    • 5 finger if you really like the proposal
    • 4 if you think it’s pretty good
    • 3 if you want to abstain (e.g., “I’m indifferent”)
    • 2 if you have reservations but can live with it going ahead in order to not hold up the group
    • 1 if you have serious concerns, but wouldn’t veto this version of the proposal (see below)
    • Fist if you have a major concern that means you want to veto this version of the proposal. It’s very important to make this clear to the group. Vetoing the proposal should be grounded in a reason ( e.g., violating XR UK’s Principles & Values or someone may get hurt due to the proposal), rather than personal preference (e.g., “I just don’t like it”).
  2. State the threshold at which the proposal will be passed, e.g., “Given that we have 10 more minutes so need to make a decision quickly, the proposal will pass unless someone blocks”. (This sets the threshold for passing the proposal as quite low, so it is quite likely to pass.)
    • If there is a veto or serious concern, you can either ask the person voicing it what they would need to amend to pass the proposal.
    • Ask the proposal/idea/question and record the number of people for each number. Hopefully, major concerns will have been voiced before this stage, but just before asking people to respond remind them that you do want to hear major concerns if anyone has any because then we can amend the proposal to make it better.
    • Alternative option: for a secret ballot you could choose to ask people to close their eyes if they’re comfortable doing so.
    • It's useful to check in if you have large quantities of low numbers - if there isn't a block, but everyone is at 1 finger (they have concerns), then you might want to spend more time thinking about this proposal - if you have time. You could say something like "I'm seeing lots of 1s - can I invite one or two people to speak to why they've given this a 1?" Then use that to decide if we need to resolve something before moving forward.
  3. State the outcome:
    • If there is no block (i.e., a fist) and you’re short on time, consider the proposal passed.
    • If there’s a block, invite that objector(s) to share their reasons, then work with them and the proposer to amend the proposal and ask people to decide on the new version by showing a number again.
    • If you have time, invite those who have expressed serious concerns (1) to share their concerns. If multiple people have serious concerns, it’s worth considering whether to work with the proposer and objector to amend the proposal if possible, as described above.

Pros: Allows for more nuance; people can express that they have a concern but don’t want to block the proposal. Asking for a number can speed things up.

Cons: Need to explain what the numbers mean and people need to remember it so it can be too complicated in time pressured situations. You need to start off with one proposal; this will not work when there are several on the table. Works best with a small group of people, say less than 10.

Thresholds: As the facilitator you can set the threshold; you can declare the decision as passed even if there’s one or two people disagreeing (majority vote situation) or decide to hear from everyone who has a niggling concern. The threshold you choose will depend largely on the time limit and the seriousness of the decision. If people do not agree with the threshold, they will tell you. As a facilitator, it's most important here to keep open and to welcome refinements - not always easy, especially when under pressure.

In the above example, we’ve set the threshold in favour of the proposal passing since it will only be blocked if someone concerns so serious they are prepared to veto the proposal. This is deliberate - we want to be biased in favour of taking action and trying things.

However, we also want good proposals, so if you have the time or the decision is very important, consider resolving the issues of those who have serious concerns - the facilitator and group can set the threshold wherever they like.

2. Majority Vote

The group is expected to go with what the majority is in favour of.

Follow the steps for either a meeting or people’s assembly as described above, then:

  1. Ask the group to raise their hands if they are in favour of the proposal, against it or abstaining (eyes closed for a secret ballot).
  2. Record the number voting for each.
  3. Announce the decision.

Pros: Fast, perfectly fine to use it when a decision needs to be made super rapidly or is inconsequential, e.g., “shall we move to the shade?”. But when the decision will be contentious, Fist to Five would be better. Works well when there are many people. It’s OK to disagree and this method reflects that.

Cons: The minority may be unhappy, feel undervalued and disengage from the group.

3. Temperature Checks

Temperature checks can be seen as a type of voting, but they are usually not taken as a formal decision unless all hands are in the air or the decision is inconsequential (e.g., should we stay here or move to the shade?”)

Follow the steps for either a meeting or people’s assembly as described above, then:

  1. Tell people you’re going to do a temperature check and what the response options are: People do jazz hands in the air for yes, and downward jazz hands for no.
  2. Ask the question.
  3. Announce the decision.

Pros: gives a quick idea of how the group feels about something.

Cons: can be ambiguous what it means when people put their hands in the middle, can be hard to look at a crowd and determine how many people are doing each, can be hard to see hands that are down because of people standing in the way.

By asking yes or no (or any question with a binary response), you cut down on the amount of discussion needed. Thinking about the different issues related to the topic and asking a series of binary questions can be useful to get a sense of how the group feels really quickly. It can also be useful to check in with one or two people who indicated that they disagreed so that at least they can feel heard and hopefully be less frustrated.

Comparison between the processes

Below is a table allowing comparison of three different decision-making processes, Fist to Five, temperature check, and majority voting. The table outlines their details and relative speed to aid you in choosing the right process for a given decision making scenario.

Fist to Five Majority Voting Temperature Check
Number of response options 6 (see section above) 3 (yes, no, abstain) 4 (Agree, not sure, disagree, abstain)
Speed Medium Faster Fast
Strength Allows people to give more nuanced responses & allows proposals to be adjusted into something everyone can live with, rather than just rejected Quick & can be used when there are several options available Quick & can be used when there are several options available
Weakness Slightly more complicated so will take more time to explain Many people may be frustrated Can be ambiguous what hands that are at chest height mean

How do I know what process to use?

There are many different aspects of the decision that may influence which process you want to use. The key ones are:

You can determine what process to use using [The Decider App](https://thedecider.app/), a website that will ask you questions similar to those above. At the bottom of the start page you can click on the different options and read about each including their pros and cons in detail. You can also see a [comparison of decision making processes](https://thedecider.app/side-by-side-comparison). **Rapid Decision Making**: As a facilitator, you generally don’t want to bring too much of your own input to discussions. But when a decision needs to be made rapidly (usually in a “the police are here and we need to do something quickly” context), facilitators can be quite active in suggesting what to do. So don’t be afraid to make a proposal, ideally by summarising the opinion that has been voiced most frequently and turning it into a proposal. Or after a temperature check on 2-3 proposals you have in mind. ## What if I don’t have a proposal? Some different options to generate ideas include:

What if there are several options?

Are the options mutually exclusive? Could the options be combined? Remember, you may not need the perfect option, but an option that is good enough. If all your options are good enough then see what elements of them could be combined, but it is possibly more important to simply start taking action on one of them. In this situation, if you are stretched thinly, maybe the key criteria is which option will take the least of your limited capacity, or which can be delegated to a volunteer or temporary team.

Keeping track of the different options is essential, but can be difficult, especially when there’s many different variations of the same option. Visual aids can help such as writing it down and labelling them plan A, etc. Although if you refer to it as “Plan A” make sure you’re all on the same page about the plan you’re talking about. Then get people to vote so that you can narrow down the options and explore the top 2 further. Also, consider 'unpacking' exactly what people mean by specific words.

Try asking people to vote for each proposal and use consent based decision making to make sure it’s workable for everyone in the group.

Keeping it Smooth

A good facilitator can help keep the group on track to making a decision that works for everyone in the group. Encourage people to come to the meeting with all the information they need to make a decision. Point out logical fallacies (e.g., “those options are mutually exclusive”) and correct information when you notice it.

Information: Rebellions can be hot beds for rumours. Tensions can run high, people can be on edge which leads to exaggeration, especially when information is being relayed through multiple people. For example, the police changing shift can lead people to jump to conclusions that they are trying to clear the site. Fact check information and don’t share it unless it is from someone you trust personally or you’ve witnessed it directly. As a facilitator, remind the group to make decisions based on the best evidence available rather than hearsay.

Dissent: It’s your job as facilitator to ensure that everyone in the group can share their thoughts, especially the voice of doubt or concern that will probably make the proposal more robust. You can decide to set the threshold for dissent really high (“Does anyone have any major concerns with this proposal?”) or really low (“Does anyone have any little grumblings with this proposal?”). If there are people who you think might have a hard time speaking up, you can set the threshold lower for them. You may also model some dissent yourself so people feel comfortable saying theirs.

External factors make the decision for you: Make sure that the decision being discussed is not already decided by an external factor. For example, during one people’s assembly in the rebellion last October people spent a long time deciding whether to hold a road overnight or not. Half way through the People’s Assembly, someone asked “Who here is actually willing to sleep in the road tonight?” Two people put up their hands, and so the decision was pointless because there were not enough people willing to do the proposed option.

The key thing here is that if there is work to be done, check that enough people are willing to do it and they are heard on the issue. This should be done during the fact finding stage before you start the decision making process.

Other external factors could be that if we don’t act this minute, the police make the decision for you, so that limits you to choosing options already on the table.

Polar collaboration: Ask those who feel strongly about the issue to work together outside of the meeting and come back to the group with something that works for them. This is useful when there’s a few that care and others that don’t and it saves the latter sitting through those who care thrashing out the details.

Discouraging unnecessary permission seeking: Sometimes people bring a decision to the group that they can actually make themselves because it’s in their role description/mandate. Check whether the decision needs to be made by the group or whether that person can make the decision by themselves - they may still want to hear advice from the group. You don't have to know the mandates, exactly but use your judgement and if in doubt, just ask "Are you sure you need a group decision/input on this? Is it a decision you can make within your mandate?"

Amplify: When someone from a traditionally marginalised background makes a contribution it can often be overlooked or repeated by someone else who takes the credit. Accrediting the originator of the idea with their idea can be really helpful to make sure the idea nor the person doesn’t get overlooked. Some facilitators highlight that they are not being strictly fair when it comes to young people for example. They take their points/questions more often and give them more time to speak, and publicly acknowledge that I am doing it and why...

Facilitation leadership: Facilitation leadership is helping the team achieve their purpose and ensuring everyone can contribute so the team can harness its collective wisdom. See more under Leadership in the Building Healthy Teams [link to come].

Consistency: Although it’s great to represent representatives and leaders, on the time scale of a rebellion, it can lead to a lack of consistency in who is turning up to meetings and so there’s no capacity to get to know each other and build trust. You could encourage the representatives that do come to site meetings to show up consistently.

Preparing to facilitate: As a facilitator, you need to bring groundedness, fairness, sensitivity to emotions, and wisdom. Yes, that’s a very tall order! If you are to facilitate, try to find some quiet time beforehand to relax a little, look after your needs and ground yourself so you can stay cool and collected and help others do it too.

Framing questions: the direction in which a proposal is made, e.g., "the proposal is that we leave the road" vs "the proposal is that we stay here", can influence the outcome of the decision. People tend to agree with questions and no one wants to be the naysayer (or at least it can be difficult to speak up sometimes), so people will probably tend towards passing the decision. That means you’re more likely to stay if the proposal is that we stay where you are, and more likely to go if the proposal is to stay put. There’s not much that can be done here because there’s no neutral framing in this example, but it’s something to be aware of.

Acknowledgement: This text is derived from an earlier document, Guide to Decision Making on the Streets.

The Whys and Wheres of SOS terms

Why does the Self-Organising System use special terms?

Our Principle and Values inspire us to find new ways of organising that foreground transparency and accountability, mitigate power and are based on autonomy and decentralisation. Naturally we also want to keep everything as simple as simple and inclusive as possible, but if we use the language of more traditional organisations, this comes with baggage and assumptions, and will drag us away from our Principles.

We use a small set of special terms in the SOS. These are set out below, together with the reasons for using each term, and other terms that we have considered using instead. We keep these under review, and feedback and advice can be shared with the SOS team via our reception channel on Mattermost or to xrmandates@gmail.com.

SOS term that we use
 Why we use it
Alternatives we have considered
Role This term is widely used and understood. There are no alternatives that have the same usage. We do not have ‘jobs’ or ‘posts’ in XR. No clear alternatives
Mandate The concept of a mandate is central to how we distribute power across the movement, and the way we use it is entirely in line with common usage.

Mandate is defined in the dictionary as “the authority given to a group of people,” and that’s exactly the way we are using it.

This term is embedded in UK teams, and is literally used in every meeting and thousands of conversations. Changing it now would probably not be viewed favourably.		 Authority
Purpose The purpose of any mandate is the end state that the role or team is working towards.

The alternatives bring other connotations that we prefer to avoid. For example, Goal sounds like something you would stop trying to do once you achieved it, whereas Purpose is the reason for your existence, whether you have achieved it (temporarily or permanently) or not.		 Goal, Aim, Vision
Accountability The accountabilities of a role or circle are what you are accountable for. They are the tasks that the rest of the movement can expect you to do — the responsibility that comes with your autonomy. Typically you will have to do a lot of other tasks to achieve the purpose of your role, but these are at your discretion. Others can only hold you to account for your accountabilities.

Task and Activity do not cover the dimension of expectation and accountability. Responsibility is closer, but still not as clear as Accountability.		 Responsibility, Task, Activity
Domain Domain is a special case of resources. Some resources are not exclusive. For example, lots of teams use the Hub and the resources on it in the course of their work. However, controlling access to specific permissions on the Hub — for maintaining specific information, for example — is not something that we want all rebels or all teams to be able to do. A Domain is something that a team or role has exclusive control over, as part of their mandate.

Hence we use Domain as a specialist term. The only other term that has been mentioned is Resource, but that could be confusing because of its wider, more general use.		 Resource
Circle Circle refers to a team that has been created, and operates, within the terms of the Constitution.

Frequently we use Team synonymously with Circle, but sometimes it is useful to distinguish a Circle from other types of team (project teams, local groups etc.)

It ties into the whole decision making structure of the SOS.		 Team, Group
Sub-circle, Broader-circle This is a simple extension of the Circle term that reflects how the teams appear visually at organism.extinctionrebellion.uk and shows how teams are nested within each other, each having a part of the broader circle’s authority delegated to them.

We avoid Child and Parent in relations between circles, because it comes with cultural baggage concerning parental authority and oversight. This is exactly the opposite of the autonomy granted to sub-circles, which can decide how they go about achieving their mandate without the broader circle having any say, beyond setting priorities for its wider programme of work.		 Child circle, Parent circle

Where and when do Self-Organising System terms vary?

Any person or group can organise autonomously and take action in the name and spirit of XR so long as the action fits within XR’s principles and values. In this way, power is decentralised, meaning that there is no need to ask for permission from a central group or authority.

How groups organise is up to them, as long as it aligns with the Principles and Values (including "We are based on autonomy and decentralisation" and "We actively mitigate power"). There is no requirement to follow the XR UK Constitution, but the advantage of doing so is that provides a set of agreements about how we distribute authority and decision-making across the movement. This provides clarity and transparency so that we do not lose time arguing about who has the right to make each decision.

Many groups - particularly Local Groups, Affinity Groups and some Community Groups - may feel that the full constitution is not appropriate for them. For example, they may not want to commit to having all the Core Roles in the constitution. But at the same time they may want to follow the basic 'pattern' of the Self-Organising System approach. (This also helps if, at a later date, the group circumstances change and it wants to sign up to the constitution.)

To support and enable this, the XR UK Hub uses the same basic structure of data for these groups, but uses different terms, as shown in the following table.

Signed up to the consitution Not signed up
Mandate Scope
Purpose What this group/position is for
Role Position
Accountability Activity
Domain Resources
External Coordinator Connector
Internal Coordinator Coordinator
Working Group, Circle, Sub-circle, Group, Team Group, Team

Groups in the right hand column have not actually received a mandate from a broader circle. A mandate is how a circle or team distributes power and authority to its sub-circles. Groups on the right simply have their own authority under the Principles and Values (see top of page).

And because there is no mandate for the group, other groups cannot hold them 'accountable' for performing specific activities. So we replace 'Accountability' with 'Activity'. And so on.