Document and publish our decision making process and rationale on our website

A proposal fails if either someone blocks or when there is no majority for agreements and disagreements right? In both cases, there will be more people supporting it other than the one who post it. Should we not consider them too?

Also if we should put this condition to a test, how would the criteria work for a proposal when it is published by two different persons with one of them with less affinity to the constitution? Will the same proposal will be treated differently with the person?

We look at who is blocking it or disagreeing with it.

Yes, if two people block and one of them is someone we want to keep and another we don't care, the response will differ, for each person.

We aim for consensus, so a single disagreement can stop it. So we make a decision whether to override it or not based on who is disagreeing.

Can we say,

"If the proposal fail to reach a consensus at associate level, associate members can choose to extend the period of discussion until/unless a permanent member moves the discussion to a members only group."

Saying this, There should be another clause saying,
> Permanent members will have the right to close or move the discussion to a members only group.

We aim for consensus, so a single disagreement can stop it

forgot to add this, without that it's highly likely that the voting method will be confused with first-past-the-post method. got to update the proposal regarding how a proposal will be considered success or failure.

We give veto power to every one in a level. We need not succeed in convincing someone who is ideological opposite to our core values through discussion.

So we make an evaluation whether keeping that person with us is really worth for our goals or not. Because if we override, they may not stay with us or want to be a member.

People clicking 'I agree' without evaluating every item is very likely, but we will come to know their real values only through interactions.