Hi Javier, sex 21 ago 2026 às 01:38:27 (1787287107), [email protected] enviou: > What the process needs is a parliamentarian who can say, "author, you > are right, the top half of your document is off-topic, let's edit that > out" so that the discussion is not exhausted majoring in minors. >
To me, the above seems very different to the bellow > > Facilitation team > > > > Setting up a facilitation team to plan and run the decision-making process > > is vital for a successful outcome. Unless you have a facilitator with > > supernatural powers, you will probably need several people in a team: > > someone to look after the discussion, someone to take hands, someone to > > write up notes on a flipchart, a timekeeper, a doorkeeper and someone > > to prepare refreshments. > > > Active participation > > > > Large meetings can easily be dominated by a few, more confident people, > > with less assertive or less experienced people finding it difficult to > > participate. Good facilitation and techniques such as splitting into small > > groups (see below) can help everyone to take a full part in the meeting. > > They don't have any say on the vote, which is how consensus is reach, > so I don't see how the analogy with the Moderating power is appropiate. > And to make sure the analogy remains inappropriate, I'd say such person or team would have to have their roles well defined and strictly limited to prevent abuse by measures such as not having a voice/vote of their own on the topic at hand, having some rotation/term or being randomly selected instead of being sponsors, since sponsors are already biased towards an outcome. However, I'm not sure this is what we are missing.
