Part of the Collective decision-making area.
Accord. When any group makes decisions on behalf of or affecting others in the network, it uses consent decision-making. A proposal passes unless someone has a reasoned objection – a belief, grounded in argument, that it would cause harm to the network’s shared purpose or that there is a worthwhile way to improve it. The consent process follows a defined sequence: present the proposal, invite clarifying questions, hold a reaction round for thoughts and concerns, then conduct a consent round where each member states whether they have an objection. Objections are not obstacles; they reveal information that improves the agreement. A concern – an assumption that something might be problematic – does not block a proposal but is recorded alongside the agreement and informs its evaluation criteria.
Decisions made by consent are good enough for now and safe enough to try – adequate until the next scheduled review, not perfect for all time. This aligns with Fabric’s stance that every protocol version is a hypothesis: built-in review dates ensure that each agreement is tested in practice and revised through the cycle of experience, naming, and formalisation.
Ritual. Before or during a consent round, the facilitator invites a brief somatic check-in: “Notice your body’s response to this proposal – where do you feel openness, where do you feel constriction?” Drawing on the Zurich Resource Model’s central insight, this treats rational consent and embodied motivation as different registers. A decision that passes analytically but produces widespread somatic constriction may not carry the energy needed for follow-through. The practice does not give body signals veto power but treats them as information to be woven into the process. Over time, participants develop somatic literacy: attunement to the felt dimension of collective decisions. Groups may also adopt ritual dissent as an optional practice: a structured round in which participants voice disagreement with a proposal before the consent round, refining it through deliberate opposition rather than leaving objections to emerge only under the pressure of a formal decision.
Critique & Contemplation. At each review of this protocol, the group examines: Whose objections have been raised, and whose have not? What does the pattern reveal about who carries the cost of this protocol’s operation? What structural conditions make objecting difficult for some people – power differentials, cultural norms around deference, fear of social consequences? This inquiry is not optional; the protocol cannot be renewed without it.