Consensus Process

[Marc Lichterman]

Here's a description of Consensus Process that talks about blocking and how the chair, under certain circumstances, can allow consensus to be reached while someone is still attempting to block. I'm not saying we should use this exact form of consensus, but I believe it describes what I was trying to explain last night in clear terms and could be a partial model for our group.

"Consensus:

This method depends on reaching unity; it is time‐consuming and requires that all present avoid obstructionism in a common search for agreement, but it has the great advantage of not leaving behind an unhappy minority. It should be noted, however, that unity does not necessarily require unanimity. When discussion has reached a point where the chairperson proposes a decision that clearly has the support of the "weight of the group," remaining dissenters can withdraw their disagreement in order that unity be achieved. If the disagreement is fundamental, and becomes a matter of conscience, the dissenter may block consensus and discussion must continue with the object of finding a new formulation that is satisfactory to all. If consensus among all jury members cannot be reached after lengthy discussion, then, with the agreement of all jury members, consensus can be declared with any dissenters being recorded as standing outside of it. There can be no more than two dissenters."

I would personally disagree with the "no more than two dissenters" part, on the grounds that dissenters may bring in outsiders to support their block without them truly being involved in the group. I believe having some basic requirements of dedicated membership to have the right to a block should be implemented to prevent stacking of meetings and obstructionism.

Hopefully we can discuss this more in the next meeting.

--Marc Lichterman

[Kyle Rasmussen]

I think that your attack on Supermajority vs Consensus is simply on the grounds of super majority system not being able to foster the development of ideas and collaboration in proposals with all group members. With larger groups, super majority of any degree between 75% to 85% are completely acceptable, and in both systems, we would abide with the collaborative aspects of the group. The problem only comes from the final voting systems, It is much simpler to have the super majority system and have majority win over a small minority, or to have certain members exiled for non-unanimous votes.

 My proposal is only for super majority systems, not for roberts rules of order or for a hierarchical system to be implemented. voting systems are set in place before problems arise, because the voting system is only an issue on critical issues, otherwise consensus would be the easiest enough approach.

When we approach greenpeace and ask if saving the whales is a good idea, the answer is simple enough, but when we have a diverse group of people with differentiating political beliefs to come into a room and agree, its inevitable for disagreements to happen. If they actually believe that their personal political beliefs do not match what the majority of the members believe what the group tries the spread, they have the option to leave and join another group or to make their own.

--
Kyle Owen Rasmussen
Member; Western Economics Association International
1.925.917.1019

[Kansola Oshodi]

Please take me off this list.

Thanks

Sent from my iPhone

[Eric Blanc]

Please take me off this list :)

I support you all, but I live in SF.

Solidarity,
Eric

[rmas...@vzw.blackberry.net]

These are really interesting emails, however I'm not really sure how I got on this email list and these messages are clogging up my phone. If someone could remove me from the email list that would be much appreciated.

---

From: Eric Blanc <revoluti...@gmail.com>

Sender: diablofoo...@googlegroups.com

Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2011 15:03:44 -0800

To: <diablofoo...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: diablofoo...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: Consensus Process

[Marc Lichterman]

So essentially each of us is just trying to stress a different aspect of the process. In a way we're both talking about consensus (you say we would abide by the collaborative aspects of the group), but officially using supermajority stresses the hypothetical solution of individuals attempting to disable the group, which has not yet come up, over the concrete positive qualities of consensus. Choosing consensus, on the other hand, emphasizes the collaborative aspects you spoke of and brings full commitment of all involved in the decision. 

I believe that by creating clear processes for dealing with disruptive individuals, meeting packing, and so forth within a loose consensus framework we can build a system that will have the benefits of full consensus while avoiding the pitfalls that cause you to advocate supermajority. I would be glad to help draft a proposed set of guidelines for dealing with situations such as infiltration, people blocking due to personal ideologies, and so forth. 

I disagree that, even with larger groups, it's worth ignoring a small minority who strongly disagrees with a decision. I think that at least attempting to integrate their point of view, even if the consensus process ends up moving forward without them, is worth the time as it tends to yield a stronger overall agreement. Simply meeting the required percentage by definition requires less dialogue and consideration, causing weaker final decisions with less "buy-in" by members of the group.