OCN: Decision-Making Process

>> OC Network Home >> Decision Making

Updated October 3, 2022

This page provides the OC Network-wide Decision-Making Process following T3 Guidelines and applicable to all of this Networks chartered workgroups.

Decision-Making Introduction

Consensus flow chart.

With the exception of matters of a constitutional nature, decisions regarding the type, nature, scope and details of work the OCF Collab Network undertakes are determined through a process of seeking consensus. The figure on the left illustrates the process. All work of the Network starts with ideas that get vetted, tested against the scopes of the Network and workgroups and documented through a proposal that is made up of one or more Use Cases and Project Plans. Participation in developing a proposal MUST be transparent and inclusive to the extent that all members of the workgroup are given the opportunity to engage in its development.

When a workgroup chair or a facilitator deems a proposal sufficiently complete, a formal question is asked of the workgroup to measure consensus. All rostered members are asked to "consent" if they approve, "stand aside" if they don't feel they can either consent or object. An objection is valid only if it is accompanied by a justification and an alternative that cures the objection. Those who are not on the roster anyone may comment, these comments will not be treated as objections but may inform any action taken after the vote is complete.

If there are objections, there are two paths forward: (1) a modification to the proposal curing the objection is developed using the same transparent and inclusive process that resulted in the original proposal and a re-assessment of consensus is taken based on the modified proposal; or (2) there is an acceptable justification by those involved that: (a) the objection has been considered and rejected; or (b) the matter is out of scope for this phase of work even if it could be subsequent work.

It is only after all objections have been formally addressed and decisions recorded that a consensus can be declared. The key to this consensus process is that all voices are heard and all objections addressed.

Even in rapid decision making contexts, minorities (the "minus") have the right to have dissenting opinion or negative outcome predictions recorded. [¶] If there is any single simple rule that defines what is not consensus decision-making, it is censoring the dissenting opinion. Regardless of how decisions are made, dissents are always recorded in all consensus decision making systems, if only so that accuracy of predictions can be examined later so the group can learn (Wikpedia).

Preparing for a Vote

This is adapted from the T3 Guidelines Updated March 2022, Section 6.2.1

1. A workgroup chair or a facilitator may call for a vote based on their discretion. The only items requiring a vote are chartering or decommissioning the OCFC Network, chartering or decommissioning workgroups, and new projects.
2. Any proposal for a ballot must be announced at least one week in advance of voting closing.
3. Voting may take place via live meeting, video or online synchronous or asynchronous voting.

Vote Eligibility and Quorum

1. Anyone who is a rostered member of the Network or the workgroup where the voting is pertinent can participate with a vote per above guidelines.  
2. The workgroup chair will determine at their discretion whether participation in the ballot is sufficient to indicate the opinion of the group.

Enacting a Vote

1. Facilitators, chairs and leads must work to achieve general agreement before the vote and should create an opportunity for open and constructive dialogue.
2. Facilitators must clearly state the issue that is being voted on and what “consent”, "stand aside" and “object” votes mean in the context of that issue.
3. Objections must be accompanied by a justification and an alternative that cures the objection.
4. Objections must be addressed through modification of the proposal or rejected on the grounds that (a) the alternative has been previously considered and rejected, (b) the matter is out of scope, or (c) the matter is something that should be delayed for future work.
5. Whether alterations to the proposal require further consultation or voting is at the discretion of the  workgroup chair or facilitator who called for the vote.

Appealing the Result of a Vote

1. Any member of the group being balloted may appeal a vote.
2. A member may appeal a vote for only the following reasons: (a) a procedural error, (b) inaccuracy when the vote was enacted, (c) violation of the T3 Guidelines,  (d) an objection was inadequately addressed without subsequent vote.
3. An appeal must be made by 1) notifying the  chair of the workgroup or network; 2) notifying the next higher level leaders.
4. Appeals must be made within two weeks following a vote.
5. The leaders who are notified about the appeal must investigate the concern and determine whether the issue has to be revisited and a new vote taken.
6. If the member does not like the outcome of the appeals decision, they may make a final appeal to the T3 Leadership Committee.
7. The T3 Leadership Committee may decide whether to take up the issue or not. Their decision is final.

Decisions Index

OC:CD-005 TAW: Updated Charter

• Consensus Question: Do you consent to the revised TAW Charter?
• Related Charter: Technical Advisory Workgroup Charter
• Related Use Case: Not applicable
• Related Project Plan: Not applicable
• Question asked: 2022-09-14
• Question closed: 2022-09-28
• Result:
  • Consensus reached

OC:CD-004 OC: Updated Charter

• Consensus Question:
  • Do you consent to the revised Open Competencies Network Charter (formerly Open Competency Framework Collaborative Charter)?
  • Do you consent to the OCFC Network Competency Explainer?
  • Do you consent to the updated T3 OCFC Network Decision-Making Process?
• Related Charter: Open Competency Network Charter, Competency Explainer and OCFC Network Decision-Making Process.
• Related Use Case: Not applicable
• Related Project Plan: Not applicable
• Question asked: 2022-08-31
• Question closed: 2022-09-20
• Result:
  • Consensus reached

OC:CD-003 AOC: Updated Charter

• Consensus Question: Do you consent to the revised Advancing Open Competencies Workgroup Charter (formerly Requirements Workgroup on Skills and Competencies Charter)?
• Related Charter: Advancing Open Competencies Charter
• Related Use Case: Not applicable
• Related Project Plan: Not applicable
• Question asked: 2022-08-17
• Question closed: 2022-09-01
• Result:
  • Consensus reached

OCFC:CD-002 TAW: Availability and Enhancement of OCFC Competency Explorer

• Consensus Question: Do you consent to Project Plan OCFC:PP-002 and Use Case OCFC:UC-004 and the work embodied therein for availability and enhancement of OCFC Competency Explorer?
• Related Use Case.
• Related Project Plan.
• Question asked: 2022-08-04.
• Question closed: 2022-08-11.
• Result:
  • Consensus reached
  • Funding agreed

OCFC:CD-001 TAW: DESM Configuration Dashboard

• Consensus Question: Do you consent to Project Plan OCFC:PP-001 and Use Case OCFC:UC-003 and the work embodied therein for the development of a DESM Configuration Dashboard?
• Narrative Description of the Work
• Related Use Case
• Related Project Plan
• Online Consensus Questionnaire
• Question Asked: 2021-11-23 (Online)
• Question Closed: 2021-12-01
• Result:
  • Consensus Reached
  • Funding agreed
  • Project started

Contacts

If you have questions regarding OCFC consensus decisions, contact either Phil Barker (Email) or Jeanne Kitchens (Email).