The catch is that these deals are often highly secret and party delegates are often not given much time to read them. In 2017, delegates were not given the full governing agreement before voting, and in 2020 they were only given about 15 minutes to see the agreement before voting.
This remit would have changed the party constitution to give delegates a minimum of 10 days to look over an agreement before voting on it.
The fact the vote failed is an implicit vote of confidence in Shaw, who was opposed to it.
However the vote still managed to win the support of a majority of Green delegates - it only failed because it did not win the 75 per cent majority necessary to pass.
It was supported by 64 delegates with 33 opposed and seven abstaining.
Instead, a compromise working group will be established, which will propose remits for a future SGM [Special General Meeting] or AGM on better ways to get members involved in negotiations after an election and to work out the best way to get members to provide input into any decision.
This means that some change is likely and that change could come in next year's AGM which would fall right before the likely date of the 2023 general election.
Shaw had argued it would make entering into governing agreements far more difficult and would weaken the party's hand when negotiating with its likely governing partner, Labour.
Nicole Geluk-Le Gros, who is the co-convenor of the Green Left Network, the group within the Greens that promoted the remit said she was "happy" the party was moving forward with the working group idea, although it was not promoted by the Green Left Network.
"We did have 67 per cent of delegates with us and that was after five hours of debate," she said.
Geluk-Le Gros said she was happy that delegates had at least shown they were supportive of giving delegates and members more power over governing talks.
The fact this vote has gone his way bodes well for Shaw as he weighs up having another tilt at the co-leadership.
On Saturday, the party voted to reopen nominations in his role after Shaw only got the support of 75 delegates in a vote - 32 voted to reopen nominations, meaning Shaw's leadership was not confirmed with a required 75 per cent majority.
This means Shaw was ousted from the job and has one week to decide whether he wants to reapply. Other party members also have one week to decide whether they want to contest the job.
Shaw said he was "inclined" to put his name forward again, and suggested he believed he was ousted because the views of the party's voting delegates had drifted from those of party members.
"It's not immediately clear the extent to which the delegates who cast their votes that way represent the broader membership of their branches," Shaw said on Saturday.
He was also concerned that only 107 of the 150 voting delegates had showed up to vote on Saturday.
"There were substantially fewer votes cast here," Shaw said, comparing the vote to previous years.
Geluk-Le Gros said the lengthy discussion of Sunday's remit was actually quite distinct from the discussion over Shaw's leadership.
"I was expecting a little bit of that but I was really surprised and pleased that that didn't come into the conversation at all," she said.
She said the she was supportive of the fact the Green leaders had to be re-elected every year, and said the Green Left Network would be communicating with its members encouraging them to stand for the co-leadership.
"We have a view that challenge is good, we are encouraging people to stand," she said.
Green Party rules mean that any Green Party member can stand for the co-leadership. Geluk-Le Gros said there had been discussion in the party about whether one of the Green Party's many local body representatives should stand, giving some balance to current co-leader Marama Davidson who is a sitting MP.
So far, all co-leaders bar one have been sitting MPs. Russel Norman won the co-leadership despite not being an MP, but he entered Parliament at the election after he became co-leader.
