Editing Consensus decision-making (section)

===Quaker-based model===
[[Quaker]]-based consensus<ref name = "Quaker">{{cite web|url=http://legacy.earlham.edu/~consense/rrocomp.shtml/ |title=A Comparison of Quaker-based Consensus and Robert's Rules of Order. |access-date=1 March 2009 | work=Quaker Foundations of Leadership, 1999 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111020045822/http://legacy.earlham.edu/~consense/rrocomp.shtml/ |archive-date=20 October 2011 }}</ref> is said to be effective because it puts in place a simple, time-tested structure that moves a group towards unity.  The Quaker model is intended to allow hearing individual voices while providing a mechanism for dealing with disagreements.<ref name="Quaker group facilitator">{{Cite book|last=Bressen|first=Tree|title=Change Handbook|year=2006|chapter=16. Consensus Decision Making|chapter-url=https://treegroup.info/library/Consensus_Decison_Making-CH.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141026104336/http://global-4-lvs-colossus.opera-mini.net/hs23-05-08/20696/0/-1/treegroup.info/651578982/Consensus_Decison_Making-CH.pdf|archive-date=26 October 2014|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Berry |first1=Fran |last2=Snyder |first2=Monteze |title=Notes prepared for Round table: Teaching Consensus-building in the Classroom |url=http://www.earlham.edu/~consense/pateach.shtml |publisher=Quaker Foundations of Leadership, 1999 |access-date=1 March 2009 |ref=Berry |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081011161036/http://www.earlham.edu/~consense/pateach.shtml |archive-date=11 October 2008 |language=en |date=1998 |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Woodrow|first=Peter|date=1999|title=BUILDING CONSENSUS AMONG MULTIPLE PARTIES: The Experience of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission|url=http://www.earlham.edu/~consense/peterw.shtml|journal=Program in Quaker Foundations of Leadership|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080828213829/http://www.earlham.edu/~consense/peterw.shtml|archive-date=28 August 2008}}</ref>

The Quaker model has been adapted by [[Earlham College]] for application to secular settings, and can be effectively applied in any consensus decision-making process.

Its process includes:
<!--NOTE: THIS IS NOT THE FORM USED BY THE RELIGIOUS SOCIETY OF FRIENDS, but rather an ADAPTATION by Earlham College that has been widely used in secular settings. The text is a paraphrase of SOURCED material, so please do not modify it beyond its original intent. -->
*Multiple concerns and information are shared until the sense of the group is clear.
*Discussion involves [[active listening]] and sharing information.
*Norms limit number of times one asks to speak to ensure that each speaker is fully heard.
*Ideas and solutions belong to the group; no names are recorded.
*Ideally, differences are resolved by discussion. The [[facilitator]] ("clerk" or "convenor" in the Quaker model) identifies areas of agreement and names disagreements to push discussion deeper.
*The facilitator articulates the sense of the discussion, asks if there are other concerns, and proposes a "[[Minutes|minute]]" of the decision.
*The group as a whole is responsible for the decision and the decision belongs to the group.
*The facilitator can discern if one who is not uniting with the decision is acting without concern for the group or in selfish interest.
*Ideally, all dissenters' perspectives are synthesized into the final outcome for a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.<ref name = Quaker/>
*Should some dissenter's perspective not harmonize with the others, that dissenter may "stand aside" to allow the group to proceed, or may opt to "block". "Standing aside" implies a certain form of silent consent. Some groups allow "blocking" by even a single individual to halt or postpone the entire process.<ref name="Quaker group facilitator"/>

Key components of Quaker-based consensus include a belief in a common [[Human condition|humanity]] and the ability to decide together. The goal is "unity, not unanimity."  Ensuring that group members speak only once until others are heard encourages a diversity of thought. The facilitator is understood as serving the group rather than acting as person-in-charge.<ref>{{cite web |title=Our Distinctive Approach |publisher=Quaker Foundations of Leadership, 1999 |url=http://legacy.earlham.edu/~consense/distfea.shtml/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111020062953/http://legacy.earlham.edu/~consense/distfea.shtml/ |access-date=1 March 2009 |archive-date=20 October 2011 |url-status=dead}}</ref> In the Quaker model, as with other consensus decision-making processes, articulating the emerging consensus allows members to be clear on the decision in front of them.  As members' views are taken into account they are likely to support it.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Public Policy Consensus & Mediation: State of Maine Best Practices - What is a Consensus Process?|url=http://www.maine.gov/consensus/ppcm_consensus_home.htm|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081212233409/http://www.maine.gov/consensus/ppcm_consensus_home.htm|archive-date=12 December 2008|website=Maine.gov}}</ref>