The group first chooses three arbitrators or consensuals. The debate on the chosen problem is initiated by the moderator who launches proposals. Any proposed option is accepted when arbitrators decide that it is relevant and in accordance with the UN Charter of Human Rights. Referees establish and display a list of these options. The debate continues, with questions, comments, criticism and/or even new options. If the debate fails to reach a verbal consensus, the arbitrators draw up a definitive list of options – usually between 4 and 6 – to represent the debate. If everyone agrees, the president asks for a preferential vote, in accordance with the rules of a modified Count of Borda, MBC. Referees will decide on the option or combination of the two main options. If support exceeds a minimum consensus coefficient, it can be accepted.   In practice, however, this is not the choice I find. In consensual cultures, people are rarely excited or supportive. Especially because they are very frustrated with the slowness of things, the risk aversion of the company, the difficulty in making a decision and, above all, the way the products are not impressed.
The Delibeal consensus (the term is inspired by Beatty and Moores (notion of “deliberative acceptance”) not only gives participants the opportunity to express dissenting opinions, but actively encourages dissent to speak out to ensure that no one is silenced. For example, the moderator may address the contentious issues and ask the dissenters if their concerns have been adequately addressed, or if there are preliminary signs of disagreements such as “rumours” of the coffee break or someone who is irritated at being able to repeat them by doing something like “Are you sure we have reached a consensus? Pierre, you look miserable. Unlike other forms of consensus, the Delibeian consensus fosters disagreement – not in the sense that dissidents are welcomed, but to the extent that it is particularly important that dissidents be silenced. The encouragement of objections is intended to counter institutional pressure by creating an atmosphere of appreciation from the point of view of each individual. Unanimity will be achieved if the whole group appears to approve a decision. It has drawbacks, as other differences of opinion, improvements or better ideas remain hidden, but the debate is effectively closed to move it to an implementation phase. Some all consider unanimity a form of group thinking, and some experts suggest coding systems… recognition of the illusion of one of the symptoms of unanimity.”  In the consensus, there is no unanimity, writes the consensual and activist Starhawk: Characteristics of the consensual decision are: State of the agreement; Harmony of opinion, statement, action or character; Consent Concord; Compliance how, there is a good agreement between the members of the Council. Since the consensus decision focuses on the debate and seeks input from all parties involved, it can be a time-taking process.
This is a potential liability in situations where decisions must be made quickly or where it is not possible to obtain the advice of all delegates within a reasonable time. In addition, the time required to participate in the consensus decision-making process can sometimes be a barrier to the participation of people who are unable or unable to make the commitment.  However, once a decision has been made, it can be implemented more quickly than a decision made. American businessmen complained that they had to discuss the idea with everyone, even the janitor, during negotiations with a Japanese company, but as soon as a decision was made, the Americans discovered that the Japanese could act much faster because everyone was on board, while the Americans were in the grip of internal opposition.  The Quaker model has been adapted by Earlham College for application to secular attitudes and can be applied effectively in any consensual decision-making process.