[Joe Johnson]

Team Governance issues have been the source of many conflicts withing FIRST teams over the years.

In my professional life, I can't recall having been involved in voting as a means of making a significant decision. At my work we take votes from time to time but the votes are mostly about giving everyone a say and letting everyone know where everyone else stands. The purpose of the vote is not to decide but rather to help the room come to a consensus.

Consensus is how the world of engineering works for the most part. The team debates and debates and debates until everyone gets to the point where they're okay with a certain path (even if it is not the path they would have taken if it were their decision alone).

So, that is how ALMOST all decisions are made but not ALL (at least wherever I have worked). Sometimes the sides cannot come to consensus. In these cases, there is always someone empowered to make the decision. Not everyone is happy, but generally, everyone accepts the ruling because the structure of the team is understood and this is the way the team gets to move on to the next problem.

Back to FIRST. It is my experience that teams that try to come to consensus but back that up with a clearly identified "King of the Machine" (my name for this ultimate decider if consensus building failed) are more effective than any of the alternatives.

Joe J.