Integrative Decision Making (IDM) process
(This page forms part of Section C.7 of the XR UK Constitution)
This guidance includes mandatory and advisory parts.
Mandatory steps appear in bold, advice in plain text.
Mandatory process
The steps in the process are:
-
A person presents a proposal for a new policy, role or sub-circle, or to change an existing one.
-
Whoever needs to may ask clarifying questions. Only questions to better understand the proposal are allowed. No reactions. The proposer may answer.
-
Each person, one at a time, gives their reactions to the proposal. No discussion or cross talk. If the meeting is online, no typing in the chat. The proposer does not react.
-
The proposer may amend the proposal if they want to based on the reactions they have heard. This is optional. Only the proposer speaks at this step. The proposer may also respond to some of the reactions where helpful. No other discussion or feedback.
-
The facilitator asks each person in turn if they have any objection to the proposal. This is not the same as asking if they like it, agree with it, or think it’s the best way forward. The question is not “Do you think this is a good idea?” or “Is this how you would have designed things?”, but rather “Do you object to giving this a go?” or “Is this safe enough to try?”. Objections are often helpful, as they may alert the circle to consequences that haven’t yet been fully considered. They are a welcome part of the process of making a good decision. Circle members respond from the perspective of their role, not their personal opinion.
-
If the facilitator is a member of the circle and has an objection, then they must ask someone else to take over the facilitation.
-
For an objection to be valid, it must meet one of these two sets of criteria:
a. The objection must be a reason that the proposal causes harm — where harm is defined as-
either degrading the ability of the circle to achieve its mandate,
-
or limiting the objector from fulfilling the mandate of one of their roles and degrading the ability of the circle to achieve its mandate; and
The objection must be created by the proposal and not exist already; and
The objector must give a reason why they are reasonably sure the harm will happen or why they don’t consider the proposal safe enough to try.
b. The grounds for objection must be 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 Ways of Working. (The facilitator may also object to the proposal on these grounds.)
-
-
If there are no objections, the proposal is accepted.
-
If there are objections, the facilitator speaks with the objector to help clarify whether their objection meets the conditions above. It is the facilitator’s job to determine this. (They may find it helpful to use the table below.) They do not consult the other circle members, but they must explain their reasoning. If in doubt, objections are considered valid. If the objections are not deemed valid, then the proposal is accepted.
-
If there are valid objections, then the facilitator may decide either to process them immediately if they seem resolvable, or to suggest they are processed outside the meeting so that it doesn't take up everyone else's time.
-
To process valid objections, the proposer integrates them where possible by adapting the proposal so that the objections no longer exist.
-
The facilitator holds another objection round for the integrated proposal.
-
Once there are no further objections the proposal is accepted.
-
It becomes effective once it is recorded on The Hub by the Group Admin.
-
For what seems to be a minor or non-contentious proposal the following short version of this process may be used instead:
- The facilitator asks if there are any clarifications needed or any objections to the proposal. If there aren’t any, they ask for a show of hands to formally indicate no objections.
-
For the rules about who participates in the process, see Sections C.7.21- 27 of the XR UK Constitution.
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 either degrading the ability of the circle to achieve its mandate, or limiting the objector from fulfilling the mandate of one of their roles and 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 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… Could significant harm happen before we can adapt? or… | … Are you anticipating that this impact will occur? (If "Yes," ask the next pair of questions) … 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 Ways of Working then the objection is automatically valid. (This includes proposals that would clearly reinforce patterns of exclusion or discrimination.)
- It is up to the proposer to see if they can find a way to amend their proposal in order to integrate and resolve a valid objection.
- They can ask the objector for help with this: “What can be added or changed to remove that issue?”
- Or ask for contributions from anyone else to resolve the issue.
- With each suggestion, the question for the objector is “Would this resolve your objection?”, and the question for the proposer is “Would this still address the reason you brought the proposal?”