A decision framework for when a group has become too large to fit every needed voice in one room, or when a team cannot converge within five to twenty minutes of discussion. Not a default — an escalation from normal discussion. ### **What I'm thinking about** 1. **Five named roles** – **R (Recommend)** proposed the issue and solution and drives the process. **A (Agree)** must sign off; usually Legal, ensuring nobody is breaking the law. **P (Perform)** will have to enact it and therefore should contribute. **I (Input)** worth consulting. **D (Decide)** makes the call. 2. **The D is assigned by decision type** – Type 1 (irreversible) goes to the most senior person. Type 2 goes to someone else, deliberately. See [[Type 1 and Type 2 Decisions]]. 3. **Non-urgent decisions use the existing meeting** – The R schedules a dedicated decision meeting only if urgent; otherwise the next team meeting serves, which is "much more efficient." A lot of decision-process overhead is really calendar overhead. 4. **One round of questions, then a written round** – At the meeting the D reads and asks questions. If the room can answer within five minutes, she decides. If not, she requests another written round rather than extending the discussion, and decides at the next meeting. 5. **The commitment signature is the clever part** – The template ends: *"Mark commitment with 'your name +1'. This shows your commitment to the decision, even if you disagree with it."* In the worked example in the source, a participant whose written comment was a flat "No" appears among the +1 signatures on a decision that went against him. That is the artifact working exactly as designed. ### **So what?** The mechanism that makes disagree-and-commit real is that dissent is *recorded* rather than suppressed. People can commit to a decision they argued against when their argument is permanently visible in the document. Asking for commitment without preserving the objection is asking people to pretend. Note the honest scope limit: for a team of two, "the overhead of a RAPID is likely not justified." This is a tool for scale and for distributed teams. Related: [[Type 1 and Type 2 Decisions]] [[Issue, Proposed Solution]] [[Directly Responsible Individual]] [[The Loudest Voice in the Room]] [[Executive Operating System MOC]]