[Normal_gaussian]

Likely it is too formal, extremely cumbersome, and implies everybody has a vote.

When I am talking to a team I want to know what they think, ideally as immediately as possible (which visual clues allow) but don't want to have to preplan anything.

[wtbob]

Parliamentary procedure really isn't cumbersome; you can use as much or as little of it as you need. It's well-designed for organisations seeking to have discussion and reach decisions, even when the group may be ultimately unable to come to unanimity.

And on a team, doesn't everyone have a vote?

[Normal_gaussian]

> And on a team, doesn't everyone have a vote?

No.

It would largely depend on the structure of the team as to what is optimal, however it is obvious that even though the h/w specialist should be involved in the discussion of the DB system we use on the device it is the data specialist who makes the decision.

Many decisions have many more involed parties than decisionmakers for good reason.

[wtbob]

Good point. Well, FWIW parliamentary procedure can still handle non-voting parties, e.g. the non-voting representatives of U.S. territories in the U.S. Congress.