The idea that peers (socios) make decisions and act, aka rule, together (-cracy) is Sociocracy. So instead of having all to agree, the burden of proof shifts to objection to the proposal. This form of decision-making is called consent. Consent means 2 things: 1. Object to a proposal/decision 2. (Implied) Propose what I would like to have happen This means we need to get better at: 1. How do I make a "good" objection? 2. How do I make a "good" proposal?
**1 I can say No to a decision - with reasons.**
I can state my opinion that **I object**. Of course I can do this any time in private. This has little to no consequence. It is called having a personal opinion.
When I can object in a shared space where my voice has decision making power, in sociocracy this "No" is called an Objection.
Instead of allowing the decision to proceed into action, I withdraw my consent to the decision. This means we can not proceed with the proposal.
These criteria you can define together. They are not conclusive, they just focus on 3 important aspects of a learning cycle:
1. __Good enough__: improvement from before = better, and we can start doing 2. __Safe enough__: there is no irreversible risk, risk can be handled 3. __Opportunity to learn__: what we do increases our knowledge and skills
**2 I can say YES to something (what I would like to have happen.)**
What I would like to happen may be more or less concrete. When it becomes more concrete, it can be stated in a Proposal.