Update curriculum source files to current versions

content/curriculum/Sessions/Session 4 – Decision-Making in Practice.md

@@ -1,6 +1,5 @@
 # Session 4: Decision-Making in Practice
 
-*practicing collective decision-making and noticing current patterns*
 
 ## Welcome
 
@@ -45,7 +44,7 @@ Where do cooperative decision-making opportunities come from? From members raisi
 
 - Proposals  
     - *I think we should do X. Here's why and how. What does everyone think?*  
-- Check-ins -  
+- Check-ins
     - *How is everyone feeling about Y? Should we address this formally?*  
 - Process intervention  
     - *Can we try a different approach?*  
@@ -69,7 +68,7 @@ Studios should do a periodic check-in to assess how they are doing around inform
 
 **Whose idea did we go with by default?** This reveals deference patterns - whose suggestions get adopted without much scrutiny.
 
-**Who knows how to do [X] that no one else knows?** This reveals knowledge concentration - where expertise creates dependency.
+**Who knows how to do *X* that no one else knows?** This reveals knowledge concentration - where expertise creates dependency.
 
 **What happened last time someone disagreed?** This reveals dissent tolerance - whether pushback is welcomed or punished.
 
@@ -98,7 +97,7 @@ Whatever framework you use, cooperative decision-making involves choosing betwee
 
 ### Handling dissent - 5 min
 
-When someone raises a concern late in the process, don't get frustrated that they are slowing the process down. *This is**super valuable** information!* Thank them for speaking up! It's not an easy thing to do, even for a contrarian (well, maybe).
+When someone raises a concern late in the process, don't get frustrated that they are slowing the process down. *This is **super valuable** information!* Thank them for speaking up! It's not an easy thing to do, even for a contrarian (well, maybe).
 
 Then consider: Is this a clarification or modification that can be addressed quickly? Or does it point to something more fundamental that means the group isn't ready to decide? If the concern is substantial, revisit earlier steps (especially 2, 3, or 5).
 
@@ -106,7 +105,7 @@ Watch for language like "I guess I can live with it" or "I don't want to hold ev
 
 ---
 
-## Frameworks - 25 min
+## Frameworks - 14 min
 
 Different decisions call for different approaches. Here are five common frameworks:
 
@@ -114,9 +113,7 @@ Different decisions call for different approaches. Here are five common framewor
 
 Everyone agrees that the selected option is the right option. Members can block a decision if it is not their top choice (even if they'd be ok with it).
 
-"It's important to remember that **no decision-making structure can prevent all conflict or power dynamics, or guarantee that we will never be frustrated or bored or decide to part ways.** But consensus decision-making at least helps us avoid the worst costs of hierarchies and majority rules, which can include abuse of power, demobilization of most people, and inefficiency.**Consensus decision-making** gives us the best chance to hear from everyone concerned, address power dynamics, and make decisions that represent the best wisdom of the group and that people in the group will want to implement."
-
-- Dean Spade, [*Mutual Aid: Building Solidarity During This Crisis (and the Next)*](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/dean-spade-mutual-aid#toc14)
+"It's important to remember that **no decision-making structure can prevent all conflict or power dynamics, or guarantee that we will never be frustrated or bored or decide to part ways.** But consensus decision-making at least helps us avoid the worst costs of hierarchies and majority rules, which can include abuse of power, demobilization of most people, and inefficiency. **Consensus decision-making** gives us the best chance to hear from everyone concerned, address power dynamics, and make decisions that represent the best wisdom of the group and that people in the group will want to implement." – Dean Spade, [*Mutual Aid: Building Solidarity During This Crisis (and the Next)*](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/dean-spade-mutual-aid#toc14)
 
 Consensus decision-making is the most effective way to make important decisions with small groups. The process requires direct participation and active listening from all involved and, when well facilitated, leads to better decisions and stronger commitment.
 
@@ -162,9 +159,9 @@ Consent helps us find an option that everyone is okay with, even if it's not the
 
 The question in consent is: "Is this good enough for now, safe enough to try?"
 
-This is different from consensus. In consensus, everyone must actively agree that the decision is the right choice. In consent, the bar is lower: no one has a paramount objection. You're asking "Can you live with this? Does it violate your values or cause harm you can't accept?" rather than "Do you love this?".
+This is different from consensus. In consensus, everyone must actively agree that the decision is the right choice. In consent, the bar is lower: No one has a paramount objection. You're asking "Can you live with this? Does it violate your values or cause harm you can't accept?" rather than "Do you love this?"
 
-Consent also protects against the opposite problem: rigidity. When a group treats past decisions as permanent - "but we already agreed to make an RPG" - it can become impossible to adapt when things change. Consent-based decisions are explicitly *revisitable*. The question isn't just "can you live with this?" but also "can you live with this*for now*, knowing we'll check back?" If someone is blocking a revisit of an old decision, that's worth examining - are they protecting a genuine value, or has the original decision become an identity they can't let go of?
+Consent also protects against the opposite problem: Rigidity. When a group treats past decisions as permanent – "but we already agreed to make an RPG" – it can become impossible to adapt when things change. Consent-based decisions are explicitly *revisitable*. The question isn't just "can you live with this?" but also "can you live with this *for now*, knowing we'll check back?" If someone is blocking a revisit of an old decision, that's worth examining – are they protecting a genuine value, or has the original decision become an identity they can't let go of?
 
 Sociocracy is one approach to this. Sociocratic organizations use a peer governance system based on consent, where work is organized into semiautonomous small groups, known as circles. Sociocracy has a very specific formal structure for consent decision-making. We'll link to its process so you can check it out.
 
@@ -174,21 +171,15 @@ Consent makes room for experimentation. If a decision doesn't work, you can alwa
 
 ---
 
-### Majority/democratic - 2 min
+### Other frameworks - 2 min
 
-Each member votes, and the option with the most votes wins. This could be a simple majority (51%), or a different ratio such as two-thirds.
+**Majority/democratic:** Each member votes, and the option with the most votes wins (simple majority, two-thirds, etc.). If your group uses formal voting, consider Democratic Rules of Order over Robert's Rules – same structure (chair, agenda, motions, votes) but without the procedural layers that create knowledge asymmetry and can be exploited as a power dynamic. Robert's Rules are arcane, parliamentary, and not appropriate for democratic organizations. Steer clear!
 
----
+**Delegation:** The member with the most expertise makes the decision – but how is this person determined? Through a decision!
 
-### Delegation - 2 min
+**Random chance:** When no one wants to decide, use a tool that generates a random yea or nay. A dice roll, coin flip – something like that.
 
-The member with the most expertise makes the decision. How is this person determined? Through a decision! ;)
 
----
-
-### Random chance/coin flip - 2 min
-
-So... no one wants to decide. Use a tool that generates a random(ish) yea or nay.
 
 ---
 
@@ -213,14 +204,16 @@ Meeting roles shouldn't be static. When the same person always facilitates, thei
 
 #### Facilitator
 
-Guides the conversation and keeps things on track. The facilitator's job is to *help the group's wisdom emerge* rather than act as an expert on the topics. They should self-moderate their own input and be especially conscious of not being the strongest voice. They also pay attention to group dynamics -- such as, who hasn't spoken? Is someone checked out? Is tension building? (Some folks break this last responsibility into a*process/vibes observer* role, which may be especially helpful when trying out new decision-making methods.)
+Guides the conversation and keeps things on track. The facilitator's job is to *help the group's wisdom emerge* rather than act as an expert on the topics. They should self-moderate their own input and be especially conscious of not being the strongest voice. 
+
+They also pay attention to group dynamics – such as, who hasn't spoken? Is someone checked out? Is tension building? (Some folks break this last responsibility into a*process/vibes observer* role, which may be especially helpful when trying out new decision-making methods.)
 
 **Tips:**
 
 - Before opening the floor, you can provide some quiet time for participants to write their thoughts down first  
-- Using "popcorn" style means anyone can jump in to share without a formal queue. Avoid selecting people to speak randomly - this can be stressful for those who do not wish to be called on. If multiple people indicate they want to speak, keep track of the queue and update the group.  
+- Using "popcorn" style means anyone can jump in to share without a formal queue. Avoid selecting people to speak randomly – this can be stressful for those who do not wish to be called on. If multiple people indicate they want to speak, keep track of the queue and update the group.  
 - Share the floor. The facilitator makes sure that everyone gets heard and included, and no one dominates the discussion. They might intervene: "Jennie, we've heard a lot from you and I want to give some others a chance to share their perspectives."  
-- Provide regular process updates - that is, say what you're doing: "I'm going to take a few ideas, then we'll discuss"  
+- Provide regular process updates – that is, say what you're doing: "I'm going to take a few ideas, then we'll discuss"  
 - Listen actively and deeply  
 - Reflect back ideas that are shared and check with the speaker that you understand. This is an opportunity to synthesize what you just heard with the wider conversation to help everyone's understanding.  
 - Put ideas for later in the parking lot  
@@ -228,18 +221,18 @@ Guides the conversation and keeps things on track. The facilitator's job is to *
 - Check in with energy levels, especially when you see people are flagging. A 5- or 10-minute break might help perk everyone up to continue.  
 - Have prompts on hand if things go awry:  
     - "I am noticing the tension. Should we pause and address that first?"  
-    - "I feel like we're going in circles/getting stuck - let's try a different approach."  
+    - "I feel like we're going in circles/getting stuck – let's try a different approach."  
     - "Let's pause for a moment and look at our process."
 
 #### Notetaker/minutes goblin
 
-Captures attendance, most important points, decisions made, and action items. Good notes include *who decided what* and*why*, not just discussion summaries. This creates accountability that doesn't depend on memory.
+Captures attendance, most important points, decisions made, and action items. Good notes include *who decided what* and *why*, not just discussion summaries. This creates accountability that doesn't depend on memory.
 
-#### Timekeeper
+#### Timekeeper/time baby
 
 Tracks time for each agenda item and gives warnings when time is running low. Helps the group decide whether to extend, table, or wrap up.
 
-Not every meeting needs all four roles, but rotating whatever roles you use prevents one person from becoming the de facto leader.
+Not every meeting needs all three roles, but rotating whatever roles you use prevents one person from becoming the de facto leader.
 
 ---
 
@@ -320,17 +313,17 @@ Rotate roles every 3 minutes.
 
 ## Closing - 2 min
 
-You've practiced frameworks and started noticing patterns - who speaks, who defers, whose defaults became the group's. These patterns *are* your governance, whether you've named it or not.
+You've practiced frameworks and started noticing patterns – who speaks, who defers, whose defaults became the group's. These patterns *are* your governance, whether you've named it or not.
 
-Next session, we'll look at formal structures: how do you design governance that supports the decision-making practices you want and addresses the dynamics you noticed?
+Next session, we'll look at formal structures: How do you design governance that supports the decision-making practices you want and addresses the dynamics you noticed?
 
 ---
 
-## Homework (with Peer Supports) - 3 min
+## Homework - 3 min
 
 1. **Practice one decision-making framework on a real decision** – Try consent or consensus on something that actually matters, even if it's small.
 
-2. **Map your current role distribution** – Where did each role assignment come from: explicit decision, or implicit default?
+2. **Map your current role distribution** – Where did each role assignment come from: Explicit decision, or implicit default?
 
 3. **Complete the Informal Hierarchy Check-In as a studio** – Work through the 5 questions together. Bring your observations to Session 5.