CB.13:4.3 - Compare forms against the actual decision work
Compare workable alternatives, including an adequate existing arrangement. Choose the form for the subject, consequences, local knowledge, number of participants and effort people can sustain.
| Form | Construction needed | Useful boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Consultation followed by an authorised organiser’s decision. | State what input is wanted, when it can affect the choice, who decides and how the result will be explained. | Suitable where that organiser already has the decision right. Participants are giving input, not casting a binding ballot. |
| Direct decision by the eligible participants. | Define eligibility, access to the proposal, discussion and the rule for reaching a result. | Useful when the relevant people can take part and bear the decision work; a busy meeting alone does not define the electorate. |
| Representatives with bounded mandates. | Establish who selects each representative, what they may decide, how they obtain views and return reasons, and how they can be replaced. | Useful where direct participation is burdensome or distinct groups need a continuing voice. |
| Local autonomy with a limited common body. | Assign local subjects, common subjects and the route for questions affecting more than one group. | Useful when local groups can act independently except for named shared commitments or constraints. |
These forms can be combined. For example, local groups may select representatives for a joint event, while the event organiser consults participants about the programme within an already approved budget. Keep the basis of each decision understandable when moving between forms.
For each serious option, follow one ordinary question from proposal through information, discussion, decision, execution and return. Then follow a dispute, including a dispute involving the decision-maker. Identify the person or body performing each move, the time and support it needs, and what happens if it cannot act.
Compare the costs of the complete alternatives. Broad participation may improve the available account but require time and accessible preparation. Delegation can reduce repeated decision work while requiring explanation and a way to replace the delegate. Select these trade-offs from the local question; neither concentration nor distribution has a universal advantage.