From eg
No 
consensus exists until all viable options have been examined. Unless there is some assurance that minds will not rapidly change and better ideas emerge (especially from people who "weren't at the meeting" where issues were both raised and settled), decisions will be subject to being gainsaid, undone and undermined. Many similar decisions, such as configuration of application platforms, can be analyzed from the same perspective, with different positions being justified. This structure can be reusable.
IPA
The issue/position/argument form mirrors long-established adversarial processes especially in law. In a trial, a judge limits the debate to a single issue, and two positions (that of the defendant, and that of the state or plaintiff), and gives each an equal opportunity to present arguments for their own and also against each other's. This process is fair enough that people do not typically directly fight the judge, jury or police involved in that process. While it is stretching a point to call a person being led off peacefully to jail "accepting a consensus", that is physically what they do.
Proper use of IPA starts with a fairly neutral issue statement that generalizes multiple positions. Each of these should have at least one argument against, to demonstrate that positions are being examined deeply.
IPA can also be used post facto to explain decisions that are already made, but this should be done with care, and alternative positions and limits of positions (i.e. when other positions should be taken) must then be laid out more carefully.
POV
All issue statements are neutral POV, positions are factional POV - their names ideally contain the word " should" or commitments we/will/must make, arguments are factual from new troll POV with the proviso that they must support the position with evidence acceptable at least to trolls of that faction.
A page detailing issues of a certain type should have issue in its name, e.g. configuration issue. If the list is comprehensive: all configuration issues.
doesn't make decisions
An IPA structure alone does not make the decision itself, it simply makes it easier to analyze a case and justify arguments that apply to that case, perhaps by contrasting it to other cases. Even when the lawyers do their job perfectly, a judge and jury are still required!
doesn't set deadlines
Because it is persistent across many uses, an IPA also can't set deadlines by which decisions are made. The TIPA form used in meeting agendas sets a deadline by which one of the positions will have to be taken at least provisionally. A trial typically has such a deadline, at least at the outset, though it may be delayed if there are good principled reasons for that delay.
doesn't define evidence
Any evidence at all can be cited in an argument. If this becomes problematic then a full TIPAESA structure should be used, setting deadlines on when the evidence can be introduced, and requiring sources and authority for that source (saying it is accurate or insuring against liability of it being wrong). Since these rules also exist in law, a trial should be considered a good example of TIPAESA structure.
Representing I/P/A
Could be done with something like this: http://wrangl.com/
more resources
See en: dkosopedia.com: issue/position/argument and en: openpolitics.ca: IPA
