Formal decision making: Difference between revisions
From Reconciling understandings of Scripture and Science
Jump to navigationJump to search
(listing steps to be taken) |
(→Note) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''PROCESS FOR ARRIVING AT A [[structured_decision|STRUCTURED DECISION]]''' | '''PROCESS FOR ARRIVING AT A [[structured_decision|STRUCTURED DECISION]]''' | ||
::''based on legal procedures described [https://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/opinionsonhigh/about-the-high-court/judgments/ here]: It's a good model for delivering good judgements even when the judges disagree, and preserving dissenting judgements that may prove correct with the passage of time.'' | ::''based on legal procedures described [https://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/opinionsonhigh/about-the-high-court/judgments/ here]: It's a good model for delivering good judgements even when the judges disagree, and preserving dissenting judgements that may prove correct with the passage of time. In our case, we're not handing down a judgement, we're "presenting the information to the ecclesia in a way that will enable them to make informed decisions," so contrasting conclusions are good.'' — [[User:Bruce|Bruce]] | ||
# All reviewers discuss briefly, and get an idea of answers. | # All reviewers discuss briefly, and get an idea of answers. | ||
# One or more writes his/her | # One or more writes up his/her preliminary conclusions together or separately. | ||
# All read, discuss, refine if necessary until unanimous or | # All read, discuss, refine if necessary until unanimous or majority decision is reached and ticked off as ready to be reported, without waiting for supplementary comments or contrary conclusions. | ||
# All who '''concur''' with the majority | # All who '''concur''' with the majority conclusion and wish to contribute ''supplementary comments'' do so. | ||
# All who '''do not concur''' with the majority | # All who '''do not concur''' with the majority conclusion contribute alternative or dissenting conclusions if they wish. | ||
====Note==== | |||
As stated above, we appreciate that any ''conclusion'' reached by this process is not the same as a ''majority decision'' and certainly not "binding" on anyone. It is purely a way of organising our discussions and moving forward. | |||
The most important [[Deliverables|deliverable]] of our project is this wiki itself, expressing and considering all points of view — including [[Help Needed|yours]]! | |||
Latest revision as of 10:21, 9 December 2023
PROCESS FOR ARRIVING AT A STRUCTURED DECISION
- based on legal procedures described here: It's a good model for delivering good judgements even when the judges disagree, and preserving dissenting judgements that may prove correct with the passage of time. In our case, we're not handing down a judgement, we're "presenting the information to the ecclesia in a way that will enable them to make informed decisions," so contrasting conclusions are good. — Bruce
- All reviewers discuss briefly, and get an idea of answers.
- One or more writes up his/her preliminary conclusions together or separately.
- All read, discuss, refine if necessary until unanimous or majority decision is reached and ticked off as ready to be reported, without waiting for supplementary comments or contrary conclusions.
- All who concur with the majority conclusion and wish to contribute supplementary comments do so.
- All who do not concur with the majority conclusion contribute alternative or dissenting conclusions if they wish.
Note
As stated above, we appreciate that any conclusion reached by this process is not the same as a majority decision and certainly not "binding" on anyone. It is purely a way of organising our discussions and moving forward.
The most important deliverable of our project is this wiki itself, expressing and considering all points of view — including yours!
