Define voting roles
Goal: visibilize and widen the circle of people voting on decisions, focusing on people closest to the project, which includes those working the most hours on it and most affected by its actions.
In many organizational structures, power is implicit. For example, power consolidates in a pyramid, but it's not entirely clear why or how; influence happens behind closed doors, and how opinions are heard and weighed are shaped by bias.
Although imperfect, voting visibilizes power. We describe voting as the process through which members choose from specific options on what action should be taken, and their choices, in aggregate, directly affect the action ultimately taken.
But invisible powers and all kinds of manipulations also show up in voting, such as in who gets to vote, access gaps, who proposes choices in the first place, or how we interpret results. The processes below articulate how projects structure voting. They serve as guidelines, versus strict policies, to help any project team:
Increase voters and more evenly distribute power
Transparently set expectations at the outset about what voting roles are, including making it explicit, and showinh gradation across roles
Collaborate to improve voting over time
This draft framework draws on existing models, such as sociocracies, co-ops, worker self-directed nonprofits, holocracies, participatory budgeting, participatory investing, and more.
Embodying Characteristics
In the early stages of a project, set up a project-specific “voting charter.” This charter functions as a governance agreement for the life of the project and must be accessible to all participants. It should cover the following topics. Every project creates its own charter, based on its own needs, team size, and judgment.
Who sets up voting
Someone must sit down and write the voting charter! And when voting charters are set up, there might be fewer people working on the project. So how do you ensure inclusion before teams are in place? For now, we recommend assigning the voting charter according to studio roles. The charter should be revisited when team members change.
System studio
Architects draft voting charter.
Projects don’t move forward without approval from architects, developers, and advisors. Agreement from contributors is preferred. Any member can explicitly abstain from voting.
Venture Studio
Creators of the venture draft voting charter.
Creators + architects must unanimously agree to the voting charter. All other roles must at minimum provide input if they’re in place at project start.
Assign voting roles
These voting roles surface all the power structures a project may have — not necessarily all the roles it needs.
| Major Voter | Core Voter | Owner | Team | Influencer | |
| Influence choices presented to voters | x | x | x | x | x |
| Influence strategic decisions | x | x | x | x | x |
| Vote on major strategic decisions presented | x | x | x | x | |
| Vote on all strategic decisions presented | x | x | x | ||
| Provide info on strategic decisions for voters | x | x | |||
| Independently make day to day decisions | x | x | |||
| Decide on choices presented to voters | x |
Set targets & sparks
Established your ambitious voting goals, and how you plan to reach them.
Participation: Are you always looking for 100% participation? Why not?
Action sparks: What percentage of votes are required to move forward with what type of action? For example, will you move forward without unanimous agreement? How will you communicate and approach disagreement? Are questions always multiple choice between actions that you would plan to take? What happens when compromises are possible?
Votable moments
Establish what constitutes a “votable moment,” and how to handle unknowns. Right now, we think about votable moments in 3 ways: content, connection, and context.
Content
Does this choice come with a financial expense?
Could this choice have a reputational impact that affects anyone in the group?
Could this choice be interpreted as a change to the work scope?
Connection
Do you think members believe that they should be included in this decision? (Why?)
Do members need a sense of ownership over a decision? (Why?)
Context
Is there a reason that the decision cannot or should not wait for a vote, such as time sensitivity? (Was that unavoidable? If it was instead due to insufficient planning, what will you do to make sure it doesn't happen again?)
Will this decision have an impact of any kind on others? (Whether they know it or not?)
Gathering votes
Consider these questions:
How often should voting cycles take place? Can it be routine, or does it need to be tied to strategic decisions that don't yet have timelines?
How will you communicate about or openly discuss voting issues? How will people know when votes are being taken? How will they receive information to make a decision?
How will you gather votes? Are you able to create and disseminate online surveys? If polls occur live, how will you make sure everyone people feels safe expressing their opinions? What happens if your voters turn out is lower than your target?
Carry out votes. How will you collate and analyze votes? How will you ensure that dissent is welcome in the choices you provide?
Revisit
In the early stages of a project, it should set milestones to revisit voting roles to verify whether we’re achieving goals of wider participation and incorporate any lessons learned. It may make sense align voting milestones with discussions around the value pool.
Tensions
Coupling voting rights with roles is easier: In many organizational systems, decision making frameworks are unstated or partially stated norms in which power is implicitly allocated to people further up in a hierarchy. We disagree, but we get that this adds complexity.
Wider inclusion requires sophisticated infrastructure: Enabling more project participants to vote requires our team to effectively communicate choices and background information and have the capacity to gather and assess voting results. This isn't easy when your work isn't fully funded.
Not everyone has the time to vote: To vote requires time. This isn't easy when voters aren't funded.
Not everyone wants to vote!: In the spaces between time, funding, and relationship, some voters opt out because they trust us. We're learning where and how relationships and simple practices of radical transparency shift the voting context.
How We Handle Tensions
Innovations in decision making structures to serve justice are essential to our mission, and the goal of the Power Project. MJN must continue to evolve our voting philosophy according to what we learn and our budget. With funding, we hope to:
Develop consistent processes to receive votes or clearer recommendations on how to receive them: Improve our infrastructure to collect votes from larger numbers of people involved in or related to our work.
Define key decisions and voting cycles, including setting up clearer worksheets to help project creators build a strong foundation: What counts as a key decision? How often should voting occur — especially considering project participants evolve over time?
Improve communication: To make a decision, people need to understand what they're voting for. In order to further distribute power, we need to improve how we communicate goals, challenges, and choices.
Balance democracy and independence: Our working definition of justice balances democratic practice and the creative freedom honored by circular leadership. For example, when is personal creativity more important than democratic decision making, or vice versa?
Provide recommendations: We hope we are able to provide further guidance overtime to ensure that end goals are met.
Gather data on voting rights in relation to roles: Decoupling roles from voting rights allows us to visibilize power. However, we may eventually recommend consistent voting rights by role in the future and/or accordingly revise roles.
