What about this for an agreement?

That we consider that a conversation or discussion is like it is a tennis match.

That there has to be always a server and a receiver. Both responsible for sending the ball or proposal over the net to the other side. Once the served proposal is accepted as being “in” then it can be considered that, it’s up to the receiver to return it (with their proposal) back over the net. At this point the server could safely consider that it is “up to you” to return a response to his or her proposal.

However, to make sure that the ball is safely called in, we need some guidelines (a court) and an umpire or judge to adjudicate.

This is not easy when there are just two participants and no one else around. So certain agreements are going to be needed to be the adjudicator and a sense of fairness.

For example, one such agreement I propose is that no question served to the other person can be used unless it includes the server’s viewpoint as well.
That is to say, I could not serve up a question like: “What time to do you want to go home?”, without me including “….because I feel like an early night!”.

And once my point is served, the receiver cannot respond or think that it is “up to you” (me) but she needs to reply with her point of view and only then believe that the ball is then back in my court.

In this way we both participate equally in the decision making process, by getting to hear each other’s viewpoint and hopefully reasoning. This saves a decision being made by one person’s viewpoint that was left “up to you” by the other,  with the possibility of some snide remark being made by the them when the decision does not go as well as first planned.

That is why I always say it’s “up to two…to participate” or “now, it’s up to you!”