A genuine decision-making process shouldn't mask real disagreements by forcing everyone into fake consensus. What it should actually do? Give people the space to voice their thoughts, push back on ideas, and ultimately let the vote settle things.

Take how the Federal Reserve operates. When committee members can openly dissent and explain why they disagree, that's not dysfunction—that's the system working as intended. Different perspectives get aired, alternative views get recorded, and the final decision carries real weight because it wasn't just rubber-stamped.

This principle matters across the board. Whether it's a corporate board, a DAOs governance structure, or any organization trying to make solid decisions: suppressing disagreement usually makes things worse. You get better outcomes when people can actually argue their case and know their vote counts.