In this group, I find that we can not reach a decision. Nor is it simplerNot even the simplest, which says how we will divide the time between us.

This is because there are group members here who do not want to determine anything at all. Not to be bound by any decision, nor to make any decision and not commit to be committed to it.

I argue that in the absence of a decision, to which all members of the group are committed (at least for a pre-determined period of time), a group cannot exist. Here are the reasons, I understandsuggest:

'''Effective utilization of discussion time''': A large proportion of the participants invest their time and resources, in order to work as a thorngroup, and come out with any product, achieve better results than the largest of the product to which ones they can reach could have achieved themselves. If the group is unable to commit to investing resources overtime to produce the product needed for the participantsreach an agreement and a decision, then the discussion itself wastes resources, and most participants will abandon the discussion, or authorize "powerlessnessdelegate discussion and voting power to others," thus making the discussion much less democratic. Therefore, in my opinion, the willingness to make decisions and invest resources accordingly is a cornerstone of deliberation.

'''Research discussion ''': Even in a research discussion, where there is no intention to try to reach an agreed action, decisions are needed on how the discussion should be conducted. Because otherwise, there will be those who will take over the discussion time, and prevent others from expressing their position or asking questions.