Consent

Review in unbranch uses consent, not voting. The question each reviewer answers is not “do I like this?” but “do I have a reasoned objection to trying it?”.

The three answers

Answer	Meaning
Consent	No reasoned objection; safe enough to try.
Abstain	Stand aside. You are counted as having answered, but not as agreeing.
Object	A reasoned block. You must name the specific risk and the revision that would resolve it.

You answer the current revision. While review is open, you can change your answer; the new one replaces the old.

When a proposal is accepted

A proposal is accepted as soon as every current project member has answered the current revision and none of the answers is an objection. There is no vote count and no quorum.

• Membership is live. Someone who joins the project mid-review must answer too. When someone leaves, their answers no longer count, and the remaining answers are checked again.
• Organization admins who are not on the project are not counted. An admin who wants a say joins the project team.
• A material revision clears every answer. Everyone answers the new revision.

An objection is not a veto

A proposal with an objection shows as blocked, and the rule appears beside it: an objection is input for the next revision, not a permanent veto.

From there:

1. The author revises to address the risk the objection named.
2. The reviewer reads the new revision and answers again.
3. If no revision can resolve it, a project owner or organization admin can reject the proposal. That is a deliberate decision, made on the record.

Your reasoning is kept in the ledger even if you later change your answer.

Single-member projects

In a project with one member, your own consent accepts your own proposal, and you can verify your own delivery. unbranch does not yet require a second person.

Doing it well

See Objecting well for how to write an objection the author can act on.