This page describes the design principles of Open Constitution Network's Lazy Consensus protocol.
The Open Constitution network's community establishes a governance equilibrium with a lazy consensus protocol.
Lazy Consensus Motion is a community consensus protocol.
The action of governance (taken by an electorally appointed member) which keeps the community informed and is on lower ends of the Decision Pyramid can be registered with Lazy Consensus Protocol.
Open Governance decisions influence or continue to influence the Foundation's roadmap, direction and active steering.
For lazy consensus, a member simply informs the community's appropriate Open Decision Forum. The member applying lazy consensus shall attempt to best detail their community proposal, however, there is no clear guideline except for posting an associated change request.
It is therefore upon the active members of the community to respond or challenge a decision, registered with lazy consensus.
Lazy Consensus allows members to give their consent to a decision, generally indicating silence.
Decisions based on lazy consensus are eligible for a secondary review within the same electoral period.
Lazy Consensus is designed for low-key, and relatively easier open decisions.
Examples are common day-to-day activities of Core Working Committees, minor changes in a project's technical direction, and public repository periodic updates. This is not an exhaustive list. Please refer to the Decisioning Pyramid.
All decisions taken through lazy consensus may also get quashed, only if an opposing citizen uses an appropriate consensus protocol and identifies the following:
- 1.That the decision was not eligible to be covered by lazy consensus and
- 2.That the subject of the decision qualifies on the upper ends of the Decision Pyramid.
When a citizen or group of citizen(s) challenge a lazy consensus motion, members are not said to be in conflict. This event is not considered to be eligible for a Moderation policy unless conflicting members break the Code of Conduct.
Members challenging a lazy consensus decision generally identify in their proposal:
- 1.That there exists a better decision and
- 2.That there is viability in retroactively taking this better decision now.
- 3.That the change request reversal does not affect the Open Trust ledger significantly.
All Core Working Committee members, different Open Council body members, Ambassador Council members, or the Chancellor of the Executive Council can apply the Lazy Consensus motion.
Privilege Motion is generally applied by Council or Committee Chairs who have a strong reason to do so. Decisions are logged on the Open Constitution Governance System, with the Lazy Consensus Motion Protocol.