[ianyanusko]

Perhaps tangential, but my team and I have been able to avoid a lot of disagreement by asking ourselves if we truly need to make a decision in that moment. We found that we'd often debate/disagree about issues that were not pressing. Even more specifically, we noticed that many debates were over issues where we were nearly guaranteed to have better information in one week, one month, etc, when we'd truly need to make a decision.

So why debate now, only to have to debate again with new info?

We still practice disagree & commit among the three founders, which is simply a majority vote game, but now the number of heated debates has decreased.

[dcu]

wouldn't that lead to analysis paralysis? it seems you're avoiding the decision which many people consider the worst decision