Proposal Discussion Flowchart

[matthew]

So I made a proposal discussion flowchart. It's attached to this message. Please take a look and, if you have any feedback, share it. I just based it on my own understanding of the process, but it's possible that I might understand things differently than some of you.

Attachments:

[maryb]

Thanks for your hard work on this, Matthew! It made sense to me.

[rebecca]

Matt, sorry it's taken me a few days to get back to this. It looks good! There are a couple things I'd quibble with, though:
- It's not really in the process to test for consensus after clarifying questions and before any discussion. Sometimes it seems to go that fast but it's just moving very quickly through the steps where we ask for discussion / concerns and there are none.
- After "block removed? No" the option should exist to send the proposal back to working group, instead of just moving straight forward into an override vote. I guess you are considering "back to working group" to be "dead," at least temporarily, but I think it's important to reinforce to everyone that sometimes that is the right next step in the process and it doesn't necessarily mean it's dead at all.
- Where does it go on the chart for the result of discussion to be that the proposer decides to take it back to working group for further development, even though nobody has raised a block?
- Amendments come up during discussion, so it's not quite accurate to put that part after "Any discussion? No" on the chart. Though I see why it makes the chart easier to draw to do it that way.

[Emma]

I liked the original chart, and thanks for doing it, and I also really liked Rebecca's comments/suggestions and thank you for making them.

My only concern is that while it's helpful for people to have a sense of how this stuff works, if we publish something like this are we limiting the responsiveness/flexibility of facilitators in the moment? It does offer some flexibility already, but I could see point of process objections to things being done slightly differently or out of order and maybe those would be justified but that's a decision that needs to be made - is this a commitment to follow this very closely, or is this a general guide that communicates the gist of the process? And whichever way is decided (I'd support either), that needs to be spelled out clearly anywhere this is published/posted *and* to all facilitators.