Governance Models

Governance Models

Every community needs a way to make decisions. The right model depends on your size, maturity, and culture.

Consensus

Everyone agrees before the group acts. Works well for small groups (under 10) with high trust.

• Pro: Maximum buy-in, no one feels overruled
• Con: Slow; one person can block progress
• Mitigation: Use “consent” (no one objects) rather than “consensus” (everyone agrees)

Benevolent Dictator

One person decides, informed by group discussion. Common in early-stage communities where the founder’s vision is the glue.

• Pro: Fast, decisive, clear accountability
• Con: Single point of failure; can feel authoritarian
• Mitigation: Publish reasoning; commit to transition plan as the community matures

Elected Council

A small group decides on behalf of the community. Members are elected or rotated. Suits larger communities.

• Pro: Scalable; distributes responsibility
• Con: Can become disconnected from the community
• Mitigation: Term limits, public meeting notes, regular town halls

Sociocracy (Consent-Based)

Decisions are made when no one has a reasoned objection. Differs from consensus: silence is consent, and objections must propose alternatives.

• Pro: Faster than consensus; respects all voices
• Con: Requires training to implement well
• Best for: Communities that value equality but need to move at reasonable speed

Choosing Your Model

Community Size	Recommended Start	Evolve Toward
3-7 members	Consensus	Sociocracy
8-15 members	Benevolent dictator	Elected council
15-50 members	Elected council	Sociocracy with circles
50+ members	Council + working groups	Federated governance

Rapoport’s Rules for Productive Disagreement

Regardless of governance model, use these rules when disagreements arise:

1. Restate the other person’s position so clearly they say “Yes, that’s what I mean”
2. List points of agreement, especially non-obvious ones
3. Acknowledge what you’ve learned from them
4. Only then offer your critique

Chatham House Rule

For any governance model, consider adopting the Chatham House Rule for sensitive discussions: participants may use information shared, but may not attribute it to specific individuals.

This creates a safe space for honest conversation about difficult topics — budgets, performance, strategy, conflict.

This principle is adapted from the IrregularChat community, which uses Chatham House Rules as a core governance practice.

Franklin’s Anti-Dogmatism Norm

The single highest-leverage operating norm for any community. Franklin required all Junto discussions to be conducted “in the sincere spirit of inquiry after truth, without fondness for dispute or desire of victory.”

In practice, the Junto banned expressions of positiveness in opinions — words like certainly, obviously, undoubtedly, clearly. Members were forbidden from “direct contradiction.”

Franklin described his personal adoption of this norm:

“I forbade myself the use of every word or expression in the language that imported a fixed opinion, such as ‘certainly,’ ‘undoubtedly,’ etc., and I adopted, instead of them, ‘I conceive,’ ‘I apprehend,’ or ‘I imagine’ a thing to be so or so, or ‘it so appears to me at present.’”

The result:

“The modest way in which I proposed my opinions procured them a readier reception and less contradiction; I had less mortification when I was found to be in the wrong, and I more easily prevailed with others to give up their mistakes and join with me when I happened to be in the right.”

Why this works

This is not a politeness norm — it is an epistemic norm. It creates the conditions under which people can change their minds in public without losing status.

In any community where status is attached to being right, people will stop admitting error. The group stops learning. Franklin’s framing (“it appears to me at present”) explicitly encodes the provisionality of all views — including your own.

How to implement

1. Name the norm — “We speak in the spirit of inquiry, not advocacy”
2. Ban specific phrases — “obviously,” “clearly,” “everyone knows,” “it’s just common sense”
3. Replace with provisional language — “it seems to me,” “my understanding is,” “I might be wrong, but”
4. Model it as a leader — The facilitator uses provisional language first; members follow
5. Try one meeting — Run a single meeting under this norm and debrief the experience

Combining with Rapoport’s Rules

The anti-dogmatism norm governs how you state your own views. Rapoport’s Rules govern how you respond to others’ views:

1. Restate the other person’s position so clearly they say “Yes, that’s what I mean”
2. List points of agreement, especially non-obvious ones
3. Acknowledge what you’ve learned from them
4. Only then offer your critique

Together, they create a discussion culture where people feel heard, views are expressed provisionally, and minds can actually change.

Principles for Better Discourse

Use these mental tools when facilitating governance decisions:

• Occam’s Razor — The simplest explanation is usually correct
• Hanlon’s Razor — Don’t attribute to malice what ignorance explains
• Steelman Principle — Strengthen the opposing argument before engaging it
• Franklin’s Modest Inquiry — State your views as provisional, not fixed

The anti-dogmatism norm and Rapoport’s Rules are adapted from IrregularChat Discourse Guidelines.

Further Reading

• Conflict Resolution
• Delegation
• Charter Template
• The 13 Virtues — Franklin’s virtue practice as community operating system