Re: Blocks in GA?
9 views
Skip to first unread message
Jay/ Global Assemblies
Jan 19, 2012, 2:44:25 PM1/19/12
to Kevin Hengehold, National Facilitation Training WG
Hey Kevin, I'm going to CC this to who whole group.
We have this email list to answer questions just like this, and that is what this list is for so that in case something comes up in a GA that it can be dealt with outside of a scheduled call. So I'm glad your asking this question :)
Just to repeat your question, you are asking how other GA's deal with blocks and ways of getting around it with modified consensus, and what a block means within a GA, how serious is it etc....
Quick Disclaimer: This is just my understanding of consensus, and as you talk to other experienced facilitators, you will get slightly different answers, but my answers are based on the most open, grass roots, participatory, and collaborative systems that I know about.
First off, Blocks are valid in the consensus process, and also, as you mention, are VERY serious, and important as they are the only way to stop something that you feel is against the mission of the organization itself.
Where there becomes confusion in the Movement is the difference between Consensus and Voting. I really don't care how many times someone calls a up or down 9/10ths Vote a "Modified Consensus", it isn't. It is simply a Super Majority Vote. That is a simple reality and fact.
Because this movement is not supportive of governance voting overall, we use the terminology of "Modified Consensus" in replacement of Voting. This is incorrect, and when you are Voting, there are NO BLOCKS. It is simply a NO vote, it doesn't make sense to have a block when voting for a few different reasons which I will not get into. So that is where the confusion comes from.
The way I like to explain it, is that "Consensus" is not a decision making system at all, but that Consensus is actually a PROCESS.
So the way I break it down is that the Consensus Process involves "striving towards consensus". You can even strive towards supportive consensus or beyond consensus, but typically consensus is defined as "willing to go along with it", therefore you do not need to support a proposal to consent to it. Most people interpret consensus as the Consensus Process with 100% agreement, but I see it as the agreement % is actually separate from the Consensus Process itself.
A Governance Voting system is where you vote up or down on a proposal, and if a certain percentage, that is less than 100%, of the group, 90%, 80%, 75%, 66%, 50%+1 etc... votes yes, then the proposal passes. Typically in Governance Systems you "Vote to Vote", or "Vote to end discussion" before the vote takes place. Which you will see in many GA's. It is very important to "Vote to end discussion", or it is easy to manipulate and push proposals through without getting everyone informed.
With consensus on the other hand, there is no need to "Vote to Vote", because there is no voting in the first place, you need consensus, which means that everyone is willing to go along with the proposal, and anyone can hold up the process.
Before I go into the details on each option for the individuals I want to explain "Modified Consensus".
For me Modified Consensus means that you still have Consensus as the foundational process. Consensus is a Process and the goal must be to Strive towards consensus. Unless you are trying to "strive towards consensus", I don't think it should or can be called Consensus. In other words if a group allows an up or down vote with a supermajority, it is not using consensus, but a simple governance system.
But if a group has a voting system that "strives towards consensus", but allows a default measure when consensus cannot be reached, that is a Modified Consensus Process.
In this way the Consensus Process is still used, but instead of having to have a 100% passing rate for every decision, there can be a Default measure, that allows a percentage vote to pass certain issues that cannot reach consensus.
The key difference is the Default Measure.
Example wording: "Modified Consensus is Striving towards consensus with a default process that concludes with a "90%" vote if consensus cannot be reached.
There are three very important parts to Modified Consensus:
1) Consensus is still the goal. No one is able to put any proposal directly up for a super majority Vote. It is not allowed, every proposal must strive towards consensus.
2) There is a Default Measure Process for when consensus cannot be reached. This does not mean that you directly default to governance voting, it means there is a multi-step process, usually 2-6 steps, that must be followed to have one last attempt at gaining consensus before voting can be used. (Sometimes this even involved an additional meeting)
3) A value for the Super Majority Vote is given. This can be as high as "consensus minus 1 person" which can be up to a 99%, or as low as 50%+1. Bellow 50%+1 is not even majority vote, but there are certain situations where even plurality is the best method for decision making: example: scheduling meetings. (different issue though, see PS).
So the part that is confusing to most people with Modified consensus, is that you simply can't modify the consensus part out of the equation or its not consensus anymore, it is just a supermajority vote.
Once people understand that, then the hard part is defining a clear Default measure process to transition from consensus to a super majority vote. Typically the Default process consists of two main steps. Straw poll on other options we can achieve consensus on, then last attempt at a friendly amendment before going to vote. Yet those two main steps can have a few steps within them that the facilitator follows. Also it is important if your doing it correctly that there is a vote to "agree we cannot reach consensus", aka "vote to end discussion" / "vote to vote", before you vote. You would need the supermajority to agree to end discussion and not strive for consensus before a vote should be taken. In other words 90% of the group needs to agree that it is clear the group cannot come to consensus on the proposal. That does not mean they will support the proposal when it comes up for vote. This is pretty much the same process used in governance voting.
Here is a link to a example of a Default Measure Process: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11QqhFw7Wq1R0Br70YrnlgkU9Mwrhkb5fM_wcfkwO3mY/edit
So Lastly to clarify this entire process, I need to go through each option for the individual participant.
1) Approval, twinkles, YES (simple and no confusion on that)
2) Stand Aside, Abstain, Neutral, No preference, Undecided, willing to go along with it (basically for everyone that doesn't know, although there can be confusion)
3) No, Do not Agree, Have Concerns or Major Concerns, Needs improvement, have an amendment, not ready to vote, want more discussion, need more information (although clarification questions should always come first before voting). (This is where it can get a little confusing, a NO vote is NOT a Block, it is simply a statement of disapproval and should never be ignored. Typically if you have a NO vote, you automatically get the floor to speak).
4) Block, Dissent, Against the Mission of the Organization, Will leave if this goes through. (A block is definitely serious, and should not be used regularly, but we must realize that people are going to use it incorrectly and to be prepared for that.) (Within a super majority vote, there is no Block, just Yes and NO)
A few more details between No and Block:
a) Many serious organizations actually make it so that x# No votes = a block. Example: 3 No's = Block. Some groups even go for x# of Stand asides = a no or a block as well. That means that you cannot pass a proposal with a few people ups and everyone else stand asides or No's.
b) Typically in a consensus process, a No vote equals continue discussion, and consensus is not achieved until everyone is at at least a stand aside. Anyone with a No vote should minimally get a chance to speak and suggest improvements to get their agreement. But there is also a process where the facilitator changes NO to only MAJOR CONCERNS, which is very different than a normal I don't like it, but that it has fundamental flaws that need to be addressed. Even a Major Concern is not necessarily a Bock.)
c) Illegitimate No's and Blocks. Many people feel they can simply say NO and Block whenever they want. THIS IS NOT TRUE. In the consensus process there is a very fine line for a valid NO, or BLOCK. Simply stated there must be reasoning and justification for such a move. In other words they must have an alternative. An illegitimate NO or Block is one where they are just saying NO or Blocking with no alternative. That is against the consensus process since the consensus process requires movement through dialogue towards agreement. If the individual is not willing to compromise or come up with alternatives other than not doing the proposal, then their NO or Block has no legitimacy. They can still say no or Block all they want, but consensus can still be achieved and the No is simply recorded in the notes. Anyone can say NO for almost any reason, including wanting more discussion before agreeing - even if they pretty much already agree, but a block is different. You can Only block if you have a specific amendment or alternative proposal. You cannot block just to block with no possibility of consensus, that is against the process itself.
So although there is a lot of information here, this is really just a beginning into the details of decision making.
If our movement is really going to achieve real transformation, we will need to go beyond consensus and strive towards what we all actually Want, instead of what we are willing to go along with.
And remember, how you open your process to your members, for what will be agreed upon, defines the proposals themselves. If you only have to get 90% agreement to pass a proposal, then people will automatically try to pass proposals they think will only be able to get 90% approval. Also a 90% approval means that if you talk to someone who doesn't agree with your proposal, you propose it anyways cause they could be one of those 10%. If you need consensus, it changes everything. People wont even propose anything they don't think there is a possibility of 100% agreement. If you talk to a member and they disagree with your proposal, you MUST take that individual into account and change your proposal accordingly, you can NEVER disregard anybody. Consensus changes the entire dialogue of which types of proposals come up for vote to begin with.
Well, let me know if you have more questions, and sorry this was so long. I could give you links for a few 100 more pages I'm sure. hehehe.
Jay
PS. If you can't make the meetings, You can vote for what times work best for you. We must always be open to changing our meeting times, and real participatory democracy uses a plurality to agree on Meeting Times outside of meetings using surveys and forms. Our goal is to get as many people as possible, not a smaller group of "who is already at meetings".
Just click on the Main Pad link and click on the Scheduling Link:
On Jan 19, 2012, at 12:05 AM, Kevin Hengehold wrote:
Jay/Global Assemblies,Solidarity! I apologize if this is spam - I'm not sure exactly whose email this is.
I'm unable to attend the calls as scheduled (1pm MST is right in the middle of the work day), so I thought I'd to write my query: how do the other GA's interpret Blocks? We say that it's deadly serious, should only be used once or twice in your life, and it means you'll leave if the proposal goes through. Then discussion stops. There's never a chance of the Blocker actually leaving the Assembly. Is this how it's supposed to be? We do have 90-10 consensus; do other GA's with modified consensus have a way around blocks? Or are we comfortable with the fact that anyone can stop everything?Thanks again for your work.Peace, love, and Occupy,kevinOn Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 9:22 PM, <national-facilit...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Group: http://groups.google.com/group/national-facilitation-training-wg/topics
Jay/ Global Assemblies <g...@wc.tc> Jan 18 05:54PM -0800
Hey Everyone,
This is a reminder for tomorrow's Facilitation / GA Process Call. Jan 19th, 12pm PST, 3pm EST.
For those who want to help out, this email is exactly the kind of email that I shouldn't be sending out.
We NEED someone to volunteer to send out reminder emails. It isn't that hard, and there will be weeks where I simply can't do it, so people should step up and take turns, please let me know if you would like to volunteer.
To make everything simpler for the future, I have gone ahead and created a Main Pad for the Facilitation / GA Process Group. With this link you will have everything you need to know, now and into the future. Here is the link:
http://titanpad.com/FacilitationGAprocessCall (Note: This is good to do for all groups, and I've been wanting to do this for a while, I've just been too busy.)
For those who don't want to go to the link, all the most important information is bellow:
I will not be on the call tomorrow, but I will be on 30 minutes earily to help get everything set up.
If you are NEW, or would like to volunteer to help coordinate the call, please get on early so we can deal with all the details before the call starts so that regulars do not need to listen to all the same info at the beginning and we can jump right into the material.
Thanks everyone,
Jay
(415) 323-5833
NEXT CALL-In Details:
Set UP Call starts 30 minutes early at 11:30am PST, 2:30pm PST:
Free conference call #: (209) 647 1600 Access Code: 891526
Link to Call for January 19th, 2012 12 noon PST 3pm EST:
http://myaccount.maestroconference.com/conference/register/RB4H0UMXFIX40SI
Scheduling Form: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dGhlZnhDWnBMQ2EtbUQ2dEZ1alg0eWc6MA
Notes & Agendas:
Jan 19th, 2012: http://titanpad.com/FacGAprcJan19You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group national-facilitation-training-wg.
You can post via email.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an empty message.
For more options, visit this group.
Cal
Jan 20, 2012, 1:27:10 AM1/20/12
to national-facilit...@googlegroups.com
I'll add a few more comments on consensus, some of which are just
enhancements or tweaks to what Jay wrote. I'm just about to
(re)convene a working group that's wanting to rework its GA,
including (especially, for some) its decision making process. So
this is very present for me just now. Note that most of what I
offer here is not specific to the Occupy movement.
Technically, (a) voting and (b) consensus vs. majority, etc., are different matters.
Yes, as Jay suggests, even a 99% vote is still a super-duper-majority. As soon as one person who objects is overriden, then you no longer have consensus. And rather than calling majority voting a "simple governance system" (because, to me, consensus is pretty simple, though it takes a while for a group to get good at it), I'd call it "decision by majority" (compared with "decision by all").
There are methods called "consensus minus one", "consensus minus two," etc. These aren't consensus, for the reason I just mentioned, but those terms do in fact suggest that it's not actually full consensus.
Here are a few additional things to know about consensus, voting, etc.
- Consensus is used in many places around the world for decision-making, and I often say "a consensus process is used for decision-making here."
- Consensus can be the decision-making process used in governance (though it's pretty rare so far).
- Voting and consensus are not mutually exclusive concepts. Some form of voting is used in many consensus processes.
- Voting and blocking are compatible.
- In cohousing, which has used consensus for years, it can take a year to decide what to do with a tool shed.
- Most commonly, in consensus, no decision shall be made that any member/entity doesn't want to live with. (I much prefer "live with it" rather than "going along with it." IMO, it's too easy for someone to feel like they're going along with something due to the sheer number of people who are in favor of something, kind of like peer pressure, whereas living with it suggests more autonomy on the part of a non-enthusiast.)
- Also, there is no verb "to consense." Rather than saying "we consensed on xyz," one would say "we have consensus on xyz." ("Consensed" sounds awfully close to "incensed" which, to me, would tend to express more the opposite of consensus. <grin>)
- To confuse matters, the commonly used sentence "The general consensus on xyz is..." is synonymous with taking the temperature, in which you don't need actual consensus.
Two voting methods used in consensus
Some consensus-based groups have a three-position switch -- for example, thumb-up, thumb-down, thumb-sideways.
- A thumb up is "I'm good with that."
- A thumb down is "I'm not good with that."
- A thumb sideways usually means "I'm standing aside" or "I abstain" (which, to me, are different in subtle ways). This can be used to indicate a number of things:
- "I don't care one way or the other. I'm good either way."
- "The matter isn't important or interesting to me."
- "I have some concern but don't need to block it if the group wants it."
In some consensus-based groups, they make a distinction between a thumb down and blocking. Personally, I don't see much difference. If someone's against it, but not wanting to block, probably better to use a sideways. To me, a thumb down vote means "No, don't do it." For me, that *is* a block.
Also, from what I've seen, in most consensus-based groups, thumb-down objections are heard, and in some groups, a concern accompanying a thumb-sideways vote is often heard.
A shortcut that some groups use is just to ask if there are any objections. This is effective in quick decision-making or just to confirm a decision after a lot of discussion. For substantial decisions, I prefer seeing all three positions. For me, the strength of a decision is important. For example, if 10 people are participating and 2 vote up and 7 vote sideways, I'd say that's a weak decision. Some groups take that into account when considering whether a decision is robust or how likely it will "stick."
Blocking and Occupy
In some Occupys, it's stated as "A block would indicate that you would leave the organization if this isn't resolved." Personally, I find that rather extreme, and I believe it's used to discourage blocking. I tend to use a block when it looks to me like a train is going to be derailed in some way. I would generally not leave an organization over an unresolved block of mine, but if enough of these happen, and the principles behind my blocks are consistent, then I start to consider that I may just not be aligned with the organization and begin to question why I'm here. Remember this is not done simply because others may think differently than I do, but because there is a principle or principles at stake.
I also have a sense that many folks in some Occupys are afraid of blocks. We are so programmed in the masculine way that says "We *have* to make a decision." Well yes, if you're a doctor saving a bleeding patient's life, certainly. But most decisions can be tabled or even defeated (to return in some modified form another day...or not).
Legitimacy of a block
Another suggested adjustment to what Jay said: A person who is blocking doesn't have to have an alternative, other than to not do what the decision calls for. It's reasonable to say "That will produce this undesirable result" and name it, but not have an alternative. (Jay, I've never seen that used to judge a block as illegitimate.) If the train is going to run off the cliff, and I'm the only one blocking, the only alternative might be to not run the train (and therefore not deliver the cargo). This is a rather nuanced matter. Everywhere I've seen consensus, what makes a block legitimate is whether it's principled.
Additional notes
There's frequently an important corollary to the consensus concept: "No member shall unreasonably withhold consent." Generally, a person who is blocking ought to be bringing a principled objection. This is key to making a consensus process work well. One way of viewing participation in consensus is "Are you able to live with it, such that you can give consent?"
[There are a small number of groups that use what I call "better-than-consensus" or "beyond consensus" in which they strive for a high degree of alignment, and where "I can live with it" isn't seen as supportive and usually not sufficient. A discussion of this is beyond the scope of this thread, and less likely (or at least rather more difficult) to work well in groups with completely open and diverse membership as is found in most Occupys. Though I know this sort of thing is used here and there, I've personal only seen two organizations make that work well.]
Lastly, the groups I'm in (outside of Occupy) don't have formal processes (such as Jay's Default Measure Process) for getting from a block to full consensus. There are a number of steps that can be employed -- discussion, debate, dialogue, brainstorming.
My 2 cents... l
Cal
Technically, (a) voting and (b) consensus vs. majority, etc., are different matters.
Yes, as Jay suggests, even a 99% vote is still a super-duper-majority. As soon as one person who objects is overriden, then you no longer have consensus. And rather than calling majority voting a "simple governance system" (because, to me, consensus is pretty simple, though it takes a while for a group to get good at it), I'd call it "decision by majority" (compared with "decision by all").
There are methods called "consensus minus one", "consensus minus two," etc. These aren't consensus, for the reason I just mentioned, but those terms do in fact suggest that it's not actually full consensus.
Here are a few additional things to know about consensus, voting, etc.
- Consensus is used in many places around the world for decision-making, and I often say "a consensus process is used for decision-making here."
- Consensus can be the decision-making process used in governance (though it's pretty rare so far).
- Voting and consensus are not mutually exclusive concepts. Some form of voting is used in many consensus processes.
- Voting and blocking are compatible.
- In cohousing, which has used consensus for years, it can take a year to decide what to do with a tool shed.
- Most commonly, in consensus, no decision shall be made that any member/entity doesn't want to live with. (I much prefer "live with it" rather than "going along with it." IMO, it's too easy for someone to feel like they're going along with something due to the sheer number of people who are in favor of something, kind of like peer pressure, whereas living with it suggests more autonomy on the part of a non-enthusiast.)
- Also, there is no verb "to consense." Rather than saying "we consensed on xyz," one would say "we have consensus on xyz." ("Consensed" sounds awfully close to "incensed" which, to me, would tend to express more the opposite of consensus. <grin>)
- To confuse matters, the commonly used sentence "The general consensus on xyz is..." is synonymous with taking the temperature, in which you don't need actual consensus.
Two voting methods used in consensus
Some consensus-based groups have a three-position switch -- for example, thumb-up, thumb-down, thumb-sideways.
- A thumb up is "I'm good with that."
- A thumb down is "I'm not good with that."
- A thumb sideways usually means "I'm standing aside" or "I abstain" (which, to me, are different in subtle ways). This can be used to indicate a number of things:
- "I don't care one way or the other. I'm good either way."
- "The matter isn't important or interesting to me."
- "I have some concern but don't need to block it if the group wants it."
In some consensus-based groups, they make a distinction between a thumb down and blocking. Personally, I don't see much difference. If someone's against it, but not wanting to block, probably better to use a sideways. To me, a thumb down vote means "No, don't do it." For me, that *is* a block.
Also, from what I've seen, in most consensus-based groups, thumb-down objections are heard, and in some groups, a concern accompanying a thumb-sideways vote is often heard.
A shortcut that some groups use is just to ask if there are any objections. This is effective in quick decision-making or just to confirm a decision after a lot of discussion. For substantial decisions, I prefer seeing all three positions. For me, the strength of a decision is important. For example, if 10 people are participating and 2 vote up and 7 vote sideways, I'd say that's a weak decision. Some groups take that into account when considering whether a decision is robust or how likely it will "stick."
Blocking and Occupy
In some Occupys, it's stated as "A block would indicate that you would leave the organization if this isn't resolved." Personally, I find that rather extreme, and I believe it's used to discourage blocking. I tend to use a block when it looks to me like a train is going to be derailed in some way. I would generally not leave an organization over an unresolved block of mine, but if enough of these happen, and the principles behind my blocks are consistent, then I start to consider that I may just not be aligned with the organization and begin to question why I'm here. Remember this is not done simply because others may think differently than I do, but because there is a principle or principles at stake.
I also have a sense that many folks in some Occupys are afraid of blocks. We are so programmed in the masculine way that says "We *have* to make a decision." Well yes, if you're a doctor saving a bleeding patient's life, certainly. But most decisions can be tabled or even defeated (to return in some modified form another day...or not).
Legitimacy of a block
Another suggested adjustment to what Jay said: A person who is blocking doesn't have to have an alternative, other than to not do what the decision calls for. It's reasonable to say "That will produce this undesirable result" and name it, but not have an alternative. (Jay, I've never seen that used to judge a block as illegitimate.) If the train is going to run off the cliff, and I'm the only one blocking, the only alternative might be to not run the train (and therefore not deliver the cargo). This is a rather nuanced matter. Everywhere I've seen consensus, what makes a block legitimate is whether it's principled.
Additional notes
There's frequently an important corollary to the consensus concept: "No member shall unreasonably withhold consent." Generally, a person who is blocking ought to be bringing a principled objection. This is key to making a consensus process work well. One way of viewing participation in consensus is "Are you able to live with it, such that you can give consent?"
[There are a small number of groups that use what I call "better-than-consensus" or "beyond consensus" in which they strive for a high degree of alignment, and where "I can live with it" isn't seen as supportive and usually not sufficient. A discussion of this is beyond the scope of this thread, and less likely (or at least rather more difficult) to work well in groups with completely open and diverse membership as is found in most Occupys. Though I know this sort of thing is used here and there, I've personal only seen two organizations make that work well.]
Lastly, the groups I'm in (outside of Occupy) don't have formal processes (such as Jay's Default Measure Process) for getting from a block to full consensus. There are a number of steps that can be employed -- discussion, debate, dialogue, brainstorming.
My 2 cents... l
Cal
Jared Iorio
Jan 20, 2012, 3:49:05 AM1/20/12
to national-facilit...@googlegroups.com
Hi Cal,
I take a bit of an issue with your reasoning about a hard block. While what you say may be true in most consensus-based membership groups -- I'm not sure it applies here. With a fluctuating membership, we don't have the same levels of trust or familiarity as those other groups, throwing everything we might have learned in other consensus groups a curveball.
Generally, a hard block is to be used sparingly, it most literally means that there is a moral and ethical disagreement -- and there better be -- to stop a group of autonomous individuals from doing something that they want to do!
Most things that are being blocked here in Los Angeles are things someone doesn't like, or something someone doesn't approve of, or has conflicting ideologies with. Not a valid reason.
We've been working through various definitions as of late and entertaining some reconciliation type adjustments to clear these hurdles.
This was consented to at GA a few weeks ago:
Type: Process/Rule
Submitted by: Facilitation Committee
History: To be heard at GA on January 9th, 2012; CONSENTED TO, WITH AMENDMENTS
What: Change the Definition of a Hard Block
Why:
The current definition of a hard block, is that an individual feels it
threatens the solidarity of the movement and / or is prepared to walk
away. The ‘walking away from the movement’ definition has proved
unsatisfactory and detrimental to an individual with strong concerns who
does not necessarily want to walk away.
A hard block must be explained in terms of HOW the individual thinks it threatens the solidarity of the movement. What voices or groups may it marginalize or alienate? What principle of solidarity might it directly violate? How does it threaten the safety of the individual or group?What serious moral or ethical concern does it raise? A hard block must be explained in terms of the proposal’s perceived relationship to, or impacting of, the founding principles of the movement, and cannot simply be made because an individual does not ‘like’ something.
Just food for thought.
Jared Iorio
Cal
Jan 22, 2012, 5:18:42 PM1/22/12
to national-facilit...@googlegroups.com
Hi Jared,
I appreciate your response and enjoying the discussion.� In saying "most of what I offer here is not specific to the Occupy movement" I spoke to many long-used definitions and attributes of consensus.�
Other than a technology-based definition within Wikipedia to describe blocking IP addresses, the use of the term "hard block" appears to be unique to Occupy.� (I haven't found any uses of it prior to 2011.)� From what I've seen generally, in most consensus-based contexts, a block is a block.� Are you making a distinction between "block" and a "hard block"?
When you say "membership groups" does that include working groups/committees?� IOW, is this distinction between a distinction between consensus in GAs and consensus in working groups/committees?
I tend to block more often than many people (and this has been true much longer than Occupy).� When I block, it's because I see an incongruence with one or more principles.� The effort I referred to to re-work the Oakland GA decision-making process will include working up some specific scenarios.� (So far, we're using one in which a train carrying needed supplies is going to go off a cliff if the measure passes, and looking for better ones.� We're trying to find examples wherein there is no other workable solution other than to not do the action, i.e., the only choices are do it or not do it.)� This is in part because Jay suggested that a block is somehow illegitimate if the blocker doesn't offer a solution; I opine that is not a valid test for legitimacy because (a) the blocker may not be creative enough to provide a solution or (b) there may be no other solution than not making the decision.
I would block if any of these are true (and this is not an exhaustive list):
- The measure is out of alignment with one or more principles.
- The measure would damage the community or movement (even more so if it's something that's irreversible).
- The measure would likely produce an outcome other than (and often, the opposite of) the desired one.
- The measure would threaten the integrating of the movement's functioning.
(None of these necessarily fall under either rubric of "threatens the solidarity of the movement" or "prepared to walk away.")
I would not likely walk away from the movement over most things that I would block; but if this kept happens I very well might.� And solidarity doesn't "compute" to me here in Oakland.� There are splits within the movement in Oakland, some of them fundamental.� For example, proposals to stand for non-violence have been defeated more than once.� There are many who find this problematic, and some (but not all) of them, have stepped back because of this.
I do like the paragraph "A hard block must be explained in terms of..." because it allows for more reasons for blocking than "threatens the solidarity of the movement and / or is prepared to walk away", neither of which would apply for many/most of my blocks.
Curious,
Cal
On 1/20/12 12:49 AM, Jared Iorio wrote:
I appreciate your response and enjoying the discussion.� In saying "most of what I offer here is not specific to the Occupy movement" I spoke to many long-used definitions and attributes of consensus.�
Other than a technology-based definition within Wikipedia to describe blocking IP addresses, the use of the term "hard block" appears to be unique to Occupy.� (I haven't found any uses of it prior to 2011.)� From what I've seen generally, in most consensus-based contexts, a block is a block.� Are you making a distinction between "block" and a "hard block"?
When you say "membership groups" does that include working groups/committees?� IOW, is this distinction between a distinction between consensus in GAs and consensus in working groups/committees?
I tend to block more often than many people (and this has been true much longer than Occupy).� When I block, it's because I see an incongruence with one or more principles.� The effort I referred to to re-work the Oakland GA decision-making process will include working up some specific scenarios.� (So far, we're using one in which a train carrying needed supplies is going to go off a cliff if the measure passes, and looking for better ones.� We're trying to find examples wherein there is no other workable solution other than to not do the action, i.e., the only choices are do it or not do it.)� This is in part because Jay suggested that a block is somehow illegitimate if the blocker doesn't offer a solution; I opine that is not a valid test for legitimacy because (a) the blocker may not be creative enough to provide a solution or (b) there may be no other solution than not making the decision.
I would block if any of these are true (and this is not an exhaustive list):
- The measure is out of alignment with one or more principles.
- The measure would damage the community or movement (even more so if it's something that's irreversible).
- The measure would likely produce an outcome other than (and often, the opposite of) the desired one.
- The measure would threaten the integrating of the movement's functioning.
(None of these necessarily fall under either rubric of "threatens the solidarity of the movement" or "prepared to walk away.")
I would not likely walk away from the movement over most things that I would block; but if this kept happens I very well might.� And solidarity doesn't "compute" to me here in Oakland.� There are splits within the movement in Oakland, some of them fundamental.� For example, proposals to stand for non-violence have been defeated more than once.� There are many who find this problematic, and some (but not all) of them, have stepped back because of this.
I do like the paragraph "A hard block must be explained in terms of..." because it allows for more reasons for blocking than "threatens the solidarity of the movement and / or is prepared to walk away", neither of which would apply for many/most of my blocks.
Curious,
Cal
On 1/20/12 12:49 AM, Jared Iorio wrote:
Hi Cal,�
I take a bit of an issue with your reasoning about a hard block. While what you say may be true in most consensus-based�membership groups -- I'm not sure it applies here. With a fluctuating membership, we don't have the same levels of trust or familiarity as those other groups, throwing everything we might have learned in other consensus groups a curveball.
Generally, a hard block is to be used sparingly, it most literally means that there is a moral and ethical disagreement -- and there better be -- to stop a group of autonomous individuals from doing something that they want to do!
Most things that are being blocked here in Los Angeles are things someone doesn't like, or something someone doesn't approve of, or has conflicting ideologies with. Not a valid reason.�
We've been working through various definitions as of late and entertaining some reconciliation type adjustments to clear these hurdles.�
This was consented to at GA a few weeks ago:
Type: Process/Rule
Submitted by: Facilitation Committee
History: To be heard at GA on January 9th, 2012;� CONSENTED TO, WITH AMENDMENTS
What: Change the Definition of a Hard Block
Why:
The current definition of a hard block, is that an individual feels it threatens the solidarity of the movement and / or is prepared to walk away. The �walking away from the movement� definition has proved unsatisfactory and detrimental to an individual with strong concerns who does not necessarily want to walk away.A hard block must be explained in terms of HOW the individual thinks it threatens the solidarity of the movement. What voices or groups may it marginalize or alienate? What principle of solidarity might it directly violate? How does it threaten the safety of the individual or group?What serious moral or ethical concern does it raise? A hard block must be explained in terms of the proposal�s perceived relationship to, or impacting of, the founding principles of the movement, and cannot simply be made because an individual does not �like� something.
Just food for thought.�
On Jan 19, 2012, at 10:27 PM, Cal wrote:
I'll add a few more comments on consensus, some of which are just enhancements or tweaks to what Jay wrote.� I'm just about to (re)convene a working group that's wanting to rework its GA, including (especially, for some) its decision making process.� So this is very present for me just now.� Note that most of what I offer here is not specific to the Occupy movement.
Technically, (a) voting and (b) consensus vs. majority, etc., are different matters.
Yes, as Jay suggests, even a 99% vote is still a super-duper-majority.� As soon as one person who objects is overriden, then you no longer have consensus.� And rather than calling majority voting a "simple governance system" (because, to me, consensus is pretty simple, though it takes a while for a group to get good at it), I'd call it "decision by majority" (compared with "decision by all").
There are methods called "consensus minus one", "consensus minus two," etc.� These aren't consensus, for the reason I just mentioned, but those terms do in fact suggest that it's not actually full consensus.
Here are a few additional things to know about consensus, voting, etc.
- Consensus is used in many places around the world for decision-making, and I often say "a consensus process is used for decision-making here."
- Consensus can be the decision-making process used in governance (though it's pretty rare so far).
- Voting and consensus are not mutually exclusive concepts.� Some form of voting is used in many consensus processes.
- Voting and blocking are compatible.
- In cohousing, which has used consensus for years, it can take a year to decide what to do with a tool shed.
- Most commonly, in consensus, no decision shall be made that any member/entity doesn't want to live with.� (I much prefer "live with it" rather than "going along with it."� IMO, it's too easy for someone to feel like they're going along with something due to the sheer number of people who are in favor of something, kind of like peer pressure, whereas living with it suggests more autonomy on the part of a non-enthusiast.)
- Also, there is no verb "to consense."� Rather than saying "we consensed on xyz," one would say "we have consensus on xyz."� ("Consensed" sounds awfully close to "incensed" which, to me, would tend to express more the opposite of consensus. <grin>)
- To confuse matters, the commonly used sentence "The general consensus on xyz is..." is synonymous with taking the temperature, in which you don't need actual consensus.
Two voting methods used in consensus
Some consensus-based groups have a three-position switch -- for example, thumb-up, thumb-down, thumb-sideways.
- A thumb up is "I'm good with that."
- A thumb down is "I'm not good with that."
- A thumb sideways usually means "I'm standing aside" or "I abstain" (which, to me, are different in subtle ways).� This can be used to indicate a number of things:
��� - "I don't care one way or the other.� I'm good either way."
��� - "The matter isn't important or interesting to me."
��� - "I have some concern but don't need to block it if the group wants it."
In some consensus-based groups, they make a distinction between a thumb down and blocking.� Personally, I don't see much difference.� If someone's against it, but not wanting to block, probably better to use a sideways.� To me, a thumb down vote means "No, don't do it."�� For me, that *is* a block.
Also, from what I've seen, in most consensus-based groups, thumb-down objections are heard, and in some groups, a concern accompanying a thumb-sideways vote is often heard.
A shortcut that some groups use is just to ask if there are any objections.� This is effective in quick decision-making or just to confirm a decision after a lot of discussion.� For substantial decisions, I prefer seeing all three positions.� For me, the strength of a decision is important.� For example, if 10 people are participating and 2 vote up and 7 vote sideways, I'd say that's a weak decision.� Some groups take that into account when considering whether a decision is robust or how likely it will "stick."
Blocking and Occupy
In some Occupys, it's stated as "A block would indicate that you would leave the organization if this isn't resolved."� Personally, I find that rather extreme, and I believe it's used to discourage blocking.� I tend to use a block when it looks to me like a train is going to be derailed in some way.� I would generally not leave an organization over an unresolved block of mine, but if enough of these happen, and the principles behind my blocks are consistent, then I start to consider that I may just not be aligned with the organization and begin to question why I'm here.� Remember this is not done simply because others may think differently than I do, but because there is a principle or principles at stake.
I also have a sense that many folks in some Occupys are afraid of blocks.� We are so programmed in the masculine way that says "We *have* to make a decision."� Well yes, if you're a doctor saving a bleeding patient's life, certainly.� But most decisions can be tabled or even defeated (to return in some modified form another day...or not).
Legitimacy of a block
Another suggested adjustment to what Jay said:� A person who is blocking doesn't have to have an alternative, other than to not do what the decision calls for.� It's reasonable to say "That will produce this undesirable result" and name it, but not have an alternative.� (Jay, I've never seen that used to judge a block as illegitimate.)� If the train is going to run off the cliff, and I'm the only one blocking, the only alternative might be to not run the train (and therefore not deliver the cargo).� This is a rather nuanced matter.� Everywhere I've seen consensus, what makes a block legitimate is whether it's principled.
Additional notes
There's frequently an important corollary to the consensus concept:� "No member shall unreasonably withhold consent."� Generally, a person who is blocking ought to be bringing a principled objection.� This is key to making a consensus process work well.� One way of viewing participation in consensus is "Are you able to live with it, such that you can give consent?"
[There are a small number of groups that use what I call "better-than-consensus" or "beyond consensus" in which they strive for a high degree of alignment, and where "I can live with it" isn't seen as supportive and usually not sufficient.� A discussion of this is beyond the scope of this thread, and less likely (or at least rather more difficult) to work well in groups with completely open and diverse membership as is found in most Occupys.� Though I know this sort of thing is used here and there, I've personal only seen two organizations make that work well.]
Lastly, the groups I'm in (outside of Occupy) don't have formal processes (such as Jay's Default Measure Process) for getting from a block to full consensus.� There are a number of steps that can be employed -- discussion, debate, dialogue, brainstorming.
My 2 cents... l
Cal
On 1/19/12 11:44 AM, Jay/ Global Assemblies wrote:
Hey Kevin, �I'm going to CC this to who whole group.
We have this email list to answer questions just like this, and that is what this list is for so that in case something comes up in a GA that it can be dealt with outside of a scheduled call. �So I'm glad your asking this question :)
Just to repeat your question, you are asking how other GA's deal with blocks and ways of getting around it with modified consensus, and what a block means within a GA, how serious is it etc....
Quick Disclaimer: This is just my understanding of consensus, and as you talk to other experienced facilitators, you will get slightly different answers, but my answers are based on the most open, grass roots, participatory, and collaborative systems that I know about.
First off, Blocks are valid in the consensus process, and also, as you mention, are VERY serious, and important as they are the only way to stop something that you feel is against the mission of the organization itself.
Where there becomes confusion in the Movement is the difference between Consensus and Voting. �I really don't care how many times someone calls a up or down 9/10ths Vote a "Modified Consensus", it isn't. �It is simply a Super Majority Vote. �That is a simple reality and fact.
Because this movement is not supportive of governance voting overall, we use the terminology of "Modified Consensus" in replacement of Voting. �This is incorrect, and when you are Voting, there are NO BLOCKS. �It is simply a NO vote, it doesn't make sense to have a block when voting for a few different reasons which I will not get into. �So that is where the confusion comes from.
The way I like to explain it, is that "Consensus" is not a decision making system at all, but that Consensus is actually a PROCESS.
So the way I break it down is that the Consensus Process involves "striving towards consensus". �You can even strive towards supportive consensus or beyond consensus, but typically consensus is defined as "willing to go along with it", therefore you do not need to support a proposal to consent to it. �Most people interpret consensus as the Consensus Process with 100% agreement, but I see it as the agreement % is actually separate from the Consensus Process itself.
A Governance Voting system is where you vote up or down on a proposal, and if a certain percentage, that is less than 100%, of the group, 90%, 80%, 75%, 66%, 50%+1 etc... �votes yes, then the proposal passes. �Typically in Governance Systems you "Vote to Vote", or "Vote to end discussion" before the vote takes place. �Which you will see in many GA's. �It is very important to "Vote to end discussion", or it is easy to manipulate and push proposals through without getting everyone informed.
With consensus on the other hand, there is no need to "Vote to Vote", because there is no voting in the first place, you need consensus, which means that everyone is willing to go along with the proposal, and anyone can hold up the process.
Before I go into the details on each option for the individuals I want to explain "Modified Consensus".
For me Modified Consensus means that you still have Consensus as the foundational process. �Consensus is a Process and the goal must be to Strive towards consensus. � �Unless you are trying to "strive towards consensus", I don't think it should or can be called Consensus. �In other words if a group allows an up or down vote with a supermajority, it is not using consensus, but a simple governance system.
But if a group has a voting system that "strives towards consensus", but allows a default measure when consensus cannot be reached, that is a Modified Consensus Process.
In this way the Consensus Process is still used, but instead of having to have a 100% passing rate for every decision, there can be a Default measure, that allows a percentage vote to pass certain issues that cannot reach consensus.
The key difference is the Default Measure.
Example wording: "Modified Consensus is Striving towards consensus with a default process that concludes with a "90%" vote if consensus cannot be reached.
There are three very important parts to Modified Consensus:
1) Consensus is still the goal. �No one is able to put any proposal directly up for a super majority Vote. �It is not allowed, every proposal must strive towards consensus.2) There is a Default Measure Process for when consensus cannot be reached. �This does not mean that you directly default to governance voting, it means there is a multi-step process, usually 2-6 steps, that must be followed to have one last attempt at gaining consensus before voting can be used. (Sometimes this even involved an additional meeting)3) A value for the Super Majority Vote is given. �This can be as high as "consensus minus 1 person" which can be up to a 99%, or as low as 50%+1. Bellow 50%+1 is not even majority vote, but there are certain situations where even plurality is the best method for decision making: example: scheduling meetings. (different issue though, see PS).
So the part that is confusing to most people with Modified consensus, is that you simply can't modify the consensus part out of the equation or its not consensus anymore, it is just a supermajority vote.
Once people understand that, then the hard part is defining a clear Default measure process to transition from consensus to a super majority vote. �Typically the Default process consists of two main steps. �Straw poll on other options we can achieve consensus on, then last attempt at a friendly amendment before going to vote. �Yet those two main steps can have a few steps within them that the facilitator follows. �Also it is important if your doing it correctly that there is a vote to "agree we cannot reach consensus", aka "vote to end discussion" / "vote to vote", before you vote. �You would need the supermajority to agree to end discussion and not strive for consensus before a vote should be taken. �In other words 90% of the group needs to agree that it is clear the group cannot come to consensus on the proposal. �That does not mean they will support the proposal when it comes up for vote. �This is pretty much the same process used in governance voting.
Here is a link to a example of a Default Measure Process:�https://docs.google.com/document/d/11QqhFw7Wq1R0Br70YrnlgkU9Mwrhkb5fM_wcfkwO3mY/edit
So Lastly to clarify this entire process, I need to go through each option for the individual participant.
1) Approval, twinkles, YES (simple and no confusion on that)
2) Stand Aside, Abstain, Neutral, No preference, Undecided, willing to go along with it (basically for everyone that doesn't know, although there can be confusion)
3) No, Do not Agree, Have Concerns or Major Concerns, Needs improvement, have an amendment, not ready to vote, want more discussion, need more information (although clarification questions should always come first before voting). (This is where it can get a little confusing, a NO vote is NOT a Block, it is simply a statement of disapproval and should never be ignored. �Typically if you have a NO vote, you automatically get the floor to speak).�
4) Block, Dissent, Against the Mission of the Organization, Will leave if this goes through. (A block is definitely serious, and should not be used regularly, but we must realize that people are going to use it incorrectly and to be prepared for that.) (Within a super majority vote, there is no Block, just Yes and NO)
A few more details between No and Block:
a) Many serious organizations actually make it so that x# No votes = a block. �Example: 3 No's = Block. �Some groups even go for x# of Stand asides = a no or a block as well. �That means that you cannot pass a proposal with a few people ups and everyone else stand asides or No's.
b) Typically in a consensus process, a No vote equals continue discussion, and consensus is not achieved until everyone is at at least a stand aside. �Anyone with a No vote should minimally get a chance to speak and suggest improvements to get their agreement. �But there is also a process where the facilitator changes NO to only MAJOR CONCERNS, which is very different than a normal I don't like it, but that it has fundamental flaws that need to be addressed. �Even a Major Concern is not necessarily a Bock.)
c) Illegitimate No's and Blocks. �Many people feel they can simply say NO and Block whenever they want. �THIS IS NOT TRUE. In the consensus process there is a very fine line for a valid NO, or BLOCK. �Simply stated there must be reasoning and justification for such a move. �In other words they must have an alternative. �An illegitimate NO or Block is one where they are just saying NO or Blocking with no alternative. �That is against the consensus process since the consensus process requires movement through dialogue towards agreement. �If the individual is not willing to compromise or come up with alternatives other than not doing the proposal, then their NO or Block has no legitimacy. � They can still say no or Block all they want, but consensus can still be achieved and the No is simply recorded in the notes. �Anyone can say NO for almost any reason, including wanting more discussion before agreeing - even if they pretty much already agree, but a block is different. �You can Only block if you have a specific amendment or alternative proposal. �You cannot block just to block with no possibility of consensus, that is against the process itself.
So although there is a lot of information here, this is really just a beginning into the details of decision making.
If our movement is really going to achieve real transformation, we will need to go beyond consensus and strive towards what we all actually Want, instead of what we are willing to go along with.
And remember, how you open your process to your members, for what will be agreed upon, defines the proposals themselves. �If you only have to get 90% agreement to pass a proposal, then people will automatically try to pass proposals they think will only be able to get 90% approval. �Also a 90% approval means that if you talk to someone who doesn't agree with your proposal, you propose it anyways cause they could be one of those 10%. � If you need consensus, it changes everything. �People wont even propose anything they don't think there is a possibility of 100% agreement. �If you talk to a member and they disagree with your proposal, you MUST take that individual into account and change your proposal accordingly, you can NEVER disregard anybody. �Consensus changes the entire dialogue of which types of proposals come up for vote to begin with.
Well, let me know if you have more questions, and sorry this was so long. �I could give you links for a few 100 more pages I'm sure. �hehehe.
Jay
Jay Blas Jacob Cabrera
PS. �If you can't make the meetings, You can vote for what times work best for you. �We must always be open to changing our meeting times, and real participatory democracy uses a plurality to agree on Meeting Times outside of meetings using surveys and forms. �Our goal is to get as many people as possible, not a smaller group of "who is already at meetings".
Just click on the Main Pad link and click on the Scheduling Link:
On Jan 19, 2012, at 12:05 AM, Kevin Hengehold wrote:
Jay/Global Assemblies,
Solidarity! �I apologize if this is spam - I'm not sure exactly whose email this is. �
I'm unable to attend the calls as scheduled (1pm MST is right in the middle of the work day), so I thought I'd to write my query: �how do the other GA's interpret Blocks? �We say that it's deadly serious, should only be used once or twice in your life, and it means you'll leave if the proposal goes through. �Then discussion stops. �There's never a chance of the Blocker actually leaving the Assembly. �Is this how it's supposed to be? �We do have 90-10 consensus; do other GA's with modified consensus have a way around blocks? �Or are we comfortable with the fact that anyone can stop everything?
Thanks again for your work.
Peace, love, and Occupy,
kevin
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 9:22 PM, <national-facilit...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Jay/ Global Assemblies <g...@wc.tc> Jan 18 05:54PM -0800 �
Hey Everyone,
�
This is a reminder for tomorrow's Facilitation / GA Process Call. Jan 19th, 12pm PST, 3pm EST.
�
For those who want to help out, this email is exactly the kind of email that I shouldn't be sending out.
�
We NEED someone to volunteer to send out reminder emails. It isn't that hard, and there will be weeks where I simply can't do it, so people should step up and take turns, please let me know if you would like to volunteer.
�
To make everything simpler for the future, I have gone ahead and created a Main Pad for the Facilitation / GA Process Group. With this link you will have everything you need to know, now and into the future. Here is the link:
http://titanpad.com/FacilitationGAprocessCall (Note: This is good to do for all groups, and I've been wanting to do this for a while, I've just been too busy.)
�
For those who don't want to go to the link, all the most important information is bellow:
�
I will not be on the call tomorrow, but I will be on 30 minutes earily to help get everything set up.
If you are NEW, or would like to volunteer to help coordinate the call, please get on early so we can deal with all the details before the call starts so that regulars do not need to listen to all the same info at the beginning and we can jump right into the material.
�
Thanks everyone,
�
Jay
(415) 323-5833
�
NEXT CALL-In Details:
Set UP Call starts 30 minutes early at 11:30am PST, 2:30pm PST:
Free conference call #: (209) 647 1600 Access Code: 891526
Link to Call for January 19th, 2012 12 noon PST 3pm EST:
http://myaccount.maestroconference.com/conference/register/RB4H0UMXFIX40SI
�
Scheduling Form: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dGhlZnhDWnBMQ2EtbUQ2dEZ1alg0eWc6MA
�
Notes & Agendas:
Jan 19th, 2012: http://titanpad.com/FacGAprcJan19
�
Jared Iorio
Jan 27, 2012, 4:58:04 AM1/27/12
to national-facilit...@googlegroups.com
Hi Jared,
I appreciate your response and enjoying the discussion. In saying "most of what I offer here is not specific to the Occupy movement" I spoke to many long-used definitions and attributes of consensus.
Other than a technology-based definition within Wikipedia to describe blocking IP addresses, the use of the term "hard block" appears to be unique to Occupy. (I haven't found any uses of it prior to 2011.) From what I've seen generally, in most consensus-based contexts, a block is a block. Are you making a distinction between "block" and a "hard block"?
I appreciate your response and enjoying the discussion. In saying "most of what I offer here is not specific to the Occupy movement" I spoke to many long-used definitions and attributes of consensus.
Other than a technology-based definition within Wikipedia to describe blocking IP addresses, the use of the term "hard block" appears to be unique to Occupy. (I haven't found any uses of it prior to 2011.) From what I've seen generally, in most consensus-based contexts, a block is a block. Are you making a distinction between "block" and a "hard block"?
I think it's just flavor Cal, with no real difference in substance.
When you say "membership groups" does that include working groups/committees? IOW, is this distinction between a distinction between consensus in GAs and consensus in working groups/committees?
When you say "membership groups" does that include working groups/committees? IOW, is this distinction between a distinction between consensus in GAs and consensus in working groups/committees?
I mean, basically, that there is a lot of flux in Occupy. Most of the prior consensus process has been worked out in groups where there is a relatively static, known membership (think Quakers). You can literally walk into an Occupy meeting or GA and get thrown right in the mix, with wildly divergent backgrounds and ideologies, and no trust whatsoever.
I tend to block more often than many people (and this has been true much longer than Occupy). When I block, it's because I see an incongruence with one or more principles. The effort I referred to to re-work the Oakland GA decision-making process (Oakland doesn't work on consensus, they straight up vote, so I'm a bit confused) will include working up some specific scenarios. (So far, we're using one in which a train carrying needed supplies is going to go off a cliff if the measure passes, and looking for better ones. We're trying to find examples wherein there is no other workable solution other than to not do the action, i.e., the only choices are do it or not do it.) This is in part because Jay suggested that a block is somehow illegitimate if the blocker doesn't offer a solution; I opine that is not a valid test for legitimacy because (a) the blocker may not be creative enough to provide a solution or (b) there may be no other solution than not making the decision.
I'm sorry, but most of these are really subjective. If a train is going to go off a cliff? I'm sure you might think a certain action might be like a train going off a cliff, but obviously the organizers don't. And no one knows until it's done, do they? Hard-blocking stuff because you don't like it goes entirely against the consensus process and any hope for empowering individuals to act autonomously. There needs to be a clear and present and explainable moral or ethical dilemma to use your veto power, not simply being slightly out of line with a principle (in your opinion!).
I would block if any of these are true (and this is not an exhaustive list):
- The measure is out of alignment with one or more principles.
- The measure would damage the community or movement (even more so if it's something that's irreversible).
- The measure would likely produce an outcome other than (and often, the opposite of) the desired one.
- The measure would threaten the integrating of the movement's functioning.
(None of these necessarily fall under either rubric of "threatens the solidarity of the movement" or "prepared to walk away.")
For example, how could you actually know any of the things listed above, they're just opinions, let people do what they think best. You don't have to do it, you can stand aside. That's horizontalism. That's freedom. That opens the door for consensus, by having a dialogue about your concerns, not by shutting down conversation with a block.
I would not likely walk away from the movement over most things that I would block; but if this kept happens I very well might. And solidarity doesn't "compute" to me here in Oakland. There are splits within the movement in Oakland, some of them fundamental. For example, proposals to stand for non-violence have been defeated more than once. There are many who find this problematic, and some (but not all) of them, have stepped back because of this.
I would not likely walk away from the movement over most things that I would block; but if this kept happens I very well might. And solidarity doesn't "compute" to me here in Oakland. There are splits within the movement in Oakland, some of them fundamental. For example, proposals to stand for non-violence have been defeated more than once. There are many who find this problematic, and some (but not all) of them, have stepped back because of this.
I do like the paragraph "A hard block must be explained in terms of..." because it allows for more reasons for blocking than "threatens the solidarity of the movement and / or is prepared to walk away", neither of which would apply for many/most of my blocks.
Just some quick thoughts, thanks for the outlook.
Curious,
Cal
On 1/20/12 12:49 AM, Jared Iorio wrote:
Hi Cal,
I take a bit of an issue with your reasoning about a hard block. While what you say may be true in most consensus-based membership groups -- I'm not sure it applies here. With a fluctuating membership, we don't have the same levels of trust or familiarity as those other groups, throwing everything we might have learned in other consensus groups a curveball.
Generally, a hard block is to be used sparingly, it most literally means that there is a moral and ethical disagreement -- and there better be -- to stop a group of autonomous individuals from doing something that they want to do!
Most things that are being blocked here in Los Angeles are things someone doesn't like, or something someone doesn't approve of, or has conflicting ideologies with. Not a valid reason.
We've been working through various definitions as of late and entertaining some reconciliation type adjustments to clear these hurdles.
This was consented to at GA a few weeks ago:
Type: Process/Rule
Submitted by: Facilitation Committee
History: To be heard at GA on January 9th, 2012; CONSENTED TO, WITH AMENDMENTS
What: Change the Definition of a Hard Block
Why:
The current definition of a hard block, is that an individual feels it threatens the solidarity of the movement and / or is prepared to walk away. The ‘walking away from the movement’ definition has proved unsatisfactory and detrimental to an individual with strong concerns who does not necessarily want to walk away.
A hard block must be explained in terms of HOW the individual thinks it threatens the solidarity of the movement. What voices or groups may it marginalize or alienate? What principle of solidarity might it directly violate? How does it threaten the safety of the individual or group?What serious moral or ethical concern does it raise? A hard block must be explained in terms of the proposal’s perceived relationship to, or impacting of, the founding principles of the movement, and cannot simply be made because an individual does not ‘like’ something.
Just food for thought.
Jared Iorio
On Jan 19, 2012, at 10:27 PM, Cal wrote:
I'll add a few more comments on consensus, some of which are just enhancements or tweaks to what Jay wrote. I'm just about to (re)convene a working group that's wanting to rework its GA, including (especially, for some) its decision making process. So this is very present for me just now. Note that most of what I offer here is not specific to the Occupy movement.
Technically, (a) voting and (b) consensus vs. majority, etc., are different matters.
Yes, as Jay suggests, even a 99% vote is still a super-duper-majority. As soon as one person who objects is overriden, then you no longer have consensus. And rather than calling majority voting a "simple governance system" (because, to me, consensus is pretty simple, though it takes a while for a group to get good at it), I'd call it "decision by majority" (compared with "decision by all").
There are methods called "consensus minus one", "consensus minus two," etc. These aren't consensus, for the reason I just mentioned, but those terms do in fact suggest that it's not actually full consensus.
Here are a few additional things to know about consensus, voting, etc.
- Consensus is used in many places around the world for decision-making, and I often say "a consensus process is used for decision-making here."
- Consensus can be the decision-making process used in governance (though it's pretty rare so far).
- Voting and consensus are not mutually exclusive concepts. Some form of voting is used in many consensus processes.
- Voting and blocking are compatible.
- In cohousing, which has used consensus for years, it can take a year to decide what to do with a tool shed.
- Most commonly, in consensus, no decision shall be made that any member/entity doesn't want to live with. (I much prefer "live with it" rather than "going along with it." IMO, it's too easy for someone to feel like they're going along with something due to the sheer number of people who are in favor of something, kind of like peer pressure, whereas living with it suggests more autonomy on the part of a non-enthusiast.)
- Also, there is no verb "to consense." Rather than saying "we consensed on xyz," one would say "we have consensus on xyz." ("Consensed" sounds awfully close to "incensed" which, to me, would tend to express more the opposite of consensus. <grin>)
- To confuse matters, the commonly used sentence "The general consensus on xyz is..." is synonymous with taking the temperature, in which you don't need actual consensus.
Two voting methods used in consensus
Some consensus-based groups have a three-position switch -- for example, thumb-up, thumb-down, thumb-sideways.
- A thumb up is "I'm good with that."
- A thumb down is "I'm not good with that."
- A thumb sideways usually means "I'm standing aside" or "I abstain" (which, to me, are different in subtle ways). This can be used to indicate a number of things:
- "I don't care one way or the other. I'm good either way."
- "The matter isn't important or interesting to me."
- "I have some concern but don't need to block it if the group wants it."
In some consensus-based groups, they make a distinction between a thumb down and blocking. Personally, I don't see much difference. If someone's against it, but not wanting to block, probably better to use a sideways. To me, a thumb down vote means "No, don't do it." For me, that *is* a block.
Also, from what I've seen, in most consensus-based groups, thumb-down objections are heard, and in some groups, a concern accompanying a thumb-sideways vote is often heard.
A shortcut that some groups use is just to ask if there are any objections. This is effective in quick decision-making or just to confirm a decision after a lot of discussion. For substantial decisions, I prefer seeing all three positions. For me, the strength of a decision is important. For example, if 10 people are participating and 2 vote up and 7 vote sideways, I'd say that's a weak decision. Some groups take that into account when considering whether a decision is robust or how likely it will "stick."
Blocking and Occupy
In some Occupys, it's stated as "A block would indicate that you would leave the organization if this isn't resolved." Personally, I find that rather extreme, and I believe it's used to discourage blocking. I tend to use a block when it looks to me like a train is going to be derailed in some way. I would generally not leave an organization over an unresolved block of mine, but if enough of these happen, and the principles behind my blocks are consistent, then I start to consider that I may just not be aligned with the organization and begin to question why I'm here. Remember this is not done simply because others may think differently than I do, but because there is a principle or principles at stake.
I also have a sense that many folks in some Occupys are afraid of blocks. We are so programmed in the masculine way that says "We *have* to make a decision." Well yes, if you're a doctor saving a bleeding patient's life, certainly. But most decisions can be tabled or even defeated (to return in some modified form another day...or not).
Legitimacy of a block
Another suggested adjustment to what Jay said: A person who is blocking doesn't have to have an alternative, other than to not do what the decision calls for. It's reasonable to say "That will produce this undesirable result" and name it, but not have an alternative. (Jay, I've never seen that used to judge a block as illegitimate.) If the train is going to run off the cliff, and I'm the only one blocking, the only alternative might be to not run the train (and therefore not deliver the cargo). This is a rather nuanced matter. Everywhere I've seen consensus, what makes a block legitimate is whether it's principled.
Additional notes
There's frequently an important corollary to the consensus concept: "No member shall unreasonably withhold consent." Generally, a person who is blocking ought to be bringing a principled objection. This is key to making a consensus process work well. One way of viewing participation in consensus is "Are you able to live with it, such that you can give consent?"
[There are a small number of groups that use what I call "better-than-consensus" or "beyond consensus" in which they strive for a high degree of alignment, and where "I can live with it" isn't seen as supportive and usually not sufficient. A discussion of this is beyond the scope of this thread, and less likely (or at least rather more difficult) to work well in groups with completely open and diverse membership as is found in most Occupys. Though I know this sort of thing is used here and there, I've personal only seen two organizations make that work well.]
Lastly, the groups I'm in (outside of Occupy) don't have formal processes (such as Jay's Default Measure Process) for getting from a block to full consensus. There are a number of steps that can be employed -- discussion, debate, dialogue, brainstorming.
My 2 cents... l
Cal
On 1/19/12 11:44 AM, Jay/ Global Assemblies wrote:
Hey Kevin, I'm going to CC this to who whole group.
We have this email list to answer questions just like this, and that is what this list is for so that in case something comes up in a GA that it can be dealt with outside of a scheduled call. So I'm glad your asking this question :)
Just to repeat your question, you are asking how other GA's deal with blocks and ways of getting around it with modified consensus, and what a block means within a GA, how serious is it etc....
Quick Disclaimer: This is just my understanding of consensus, and as you talk to other experienced facilitators, you will get slightly different answers, but my answers are based on the most open, grass roots, participatory, and collaborative systems that I know about.
First off, Blocks are valid in the consensus process, and also, as you mention, are VERY serious, and important as they are the only way to stop something that you feel is against the mission of the organization itself.
Where there becomes confusion in the Movement is the difference between Consensus and Voting. I really don't care how many times someone calls a up or down 9/10ths Vote a "Modified Consensus", it isn't. It is simply a Super Majority Vote. That is a simple reality and fact.
Because this movement is not supportive of governance voting overall, we use the terminology of "Modified Consensus" in replacement of Voting. This is incorrect, and when you are Voting, there are NO BLOCKS. It is simply a NO vote, it doesn't make sense to have a block when voting for a few different reasons which I will not get into. So that is where the confusion comes from.
The way I like to explain it, is that "Consensus" is not a decision making system at all, but that Consensus is actually a PROCESS.
So the way I break it down is that the Consensus Process involves "striving towards consensus". You can even strive towards supportive consensus or beyond consensus, but typically consensus is defined as "willing to go along with it", therefore you do not need to support a proposal to consent to it. Most people interpret consensus as the Consensus Process with 100% agreement, but I see it as the agreement % is actually separate from the Consensus Process itself.
A Governance Voting system is where you vote up or down on a proposal, and if a certain percentage, that is less than 100%, of the group, 90%, 80%, 75%, 66%, 50%+1 etc... votes yes, then the proposal passes. Typically in Governance Systems you "Vote to Vote", or "Vote to end discussion" before the vote takes place. Which you will see in many GA's. It is very important to "Vote to end discussion", or it is easy to manipulate and push proposals through without getting everyone informed.
With consensus on the other hand, there is no need to "Vote to Vote", because there is no voting in the first place, you need consensus, which means that everyone is willing to go along with the proposal, and anyone can hold up the process.
Before I go into the details on each option for the individuals I want to explain "Modified Consensus".
For me Modified Consensus means that you still have Consensus as the foundational process. Consensus is a Process and the goal must be to Strive towards consensus. Unless you are trying to "strive towards consensus", I don't think it should or can be called Consensus. In other words if a group allows an up or down vote with a supermajority, it is not using consensus, but a simple governance system.
But if a group has a voting system that "strives towards consensus", but allows a default measure when consensus cannot be reached, that is a Modified Consensus Process.
In this way the Consensus Process is still used, but instead of having to have a 100% passing rate for every decision, there can be a Default measure, that allows a percentage vote to pass certain issues that cannot reach consensus.
The key difference is the Default Measure.
Example wording: "Modified Consensus is Striving towards consensus with a default process that concludes with a "90%" vote if consensus cannot be reached.
There are three very important parts to Modified Consensus:
1) Consensus is still the goal. No one is able to put any proposal directly up for a super majority Vote. It is not allowed, every proposal must strive towards consensus.2) There is a Default Measure Process for when consensus cannot be reached. This does not mean that you directly default to governance voting, it means there is a multi-step process, usually 2-6 steps, that must be followed to have one last attempt at gaining consensus before voting can be used. (Sometimes this even involved an additional meeting)3) A value for the Super Majority Vote is given. This can be as high as "consensus minus 1 person" which can be up to a 99%, or as low as 50%+1. Bellow 50%+1 is not even majority vote, but there are certain situations where even plurality is the best method for decision making: example: scheduling meetings. (different issue though, see PS).
So the part that is confusing to most people with Modified consensus, is that you simply can't modify the consensus part out of the equation or its not consensus anymore, it is just a supermajority vote.
Once people understand that, then the hard part is defining a clear Default measure process to transition from consensus to a super majority vote. Typically the Default process consists of two main steps. Straw poll on other options we can achieve consensus on, then last attempt at a friendly amendment before going to vote. Yet those two main steps can have a few steps within them that the facilitator follows. Also it is important if your doing it correctly that there is a vote to "agree we cannot reach consensus", aka "vote to end discussion" / "vote to vote", before you vote. You would need the supermajority to agree to end discussion and not strive for consensus before a vote should be taken. In other words 90% of the group needs to agree that it is clear the group cannot come to consensus on the proposal. That does not mean they will support the proposal when it comes up for vote. This is pretty much the same process used in governance voting.
Here is a link to a example of a Default Measure Process: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11QqhFw7Wq1R0Br70YrnlgkU9Mwrhkb5fM_wcfkwO3mY/edit
So Lastly to clarify this entire process, I need to go through each option for the individual participant.
1) Approval, twinkles, YES (simple and no confusion on that)
2) Stand Aside, Abstain, Neutral, No preference, Undecided, willing to go along with it (basically for everyone that doesn't know, although there can be confusion)
3) No, Do not Agree, Have Concerns or Major Concerns, Needs improvement, have an amendment, not ready to vote, want more discussion, need more information (although clarification questions should always come first before voting). (This is where it can get a little confusing, a NO vote is NOT a Block, it is simply a statement of disapproval and should never be ignored. Typically if you have a NO vote, you automatically get the floor to speak).
4) Block, Dissent, Against the Mission of the Organization, Will leave if this goes through. (A block is definitely serious, and should not be used regularly, but we must realize that people are going to use it incorrectly and to be prepared for that.) (Within a super majority vote, there is no Block, just Yes and NO)
A few more details between No and Block:
a) Many serious organizations actually make it so that x# No votes = a block. Example: 3 No's = Block. Some groups even go for x# of Stand asides = a no or a block as well. That means that you cannot pass a proposal with a few people ups and everyone else stand asides or No's.
b) Typically in a consensus process, a No vote equals continue discussion, and consensus is not achieved until everyone is at at least a stand aside. Anyone with a No vote should minimally get a chance to speak and suggest improvements to get their agreement. But there is also a process where the facilitator changes NO to only MAJOR CONCERNS, which is very different than a normal I don't like it, but that it has fundamental flaws that need to be addressed. Even a Major Concern is not necessarily a Bock.)
c) Illegitimate No's and Blocks. Many people feel they can simply say NO and Block whenever they want. THIS IS NOT TRUE. In the consensus process there is a very fine line for a valid NO, or BLOCK. Simply stated there must be reasoning and justification for such a move. In other words they must have an alternative. An illegitimate NO or Block is one where they are just saying NO or Blocking with no alternative. That is against the consensus process since the consensus process requires movement through dialogue towards agreement. If the individual is not willing to compromise or come up with alternatives other than not doing the proposal, then their NO or Block has no legitimacy. They can still say no or Block all they want, but consensus can still be achieved and the No is simply recorded in the notes. Anyone can say NO for almost any reason, including wanting more discussion before agreeing - even if they pretty much already agree, but a block is different. You can Only block if you have a specific amendment or alternative proposal. You cannot block just to block with no possibility of consensus, that is against the process itself.
So although there is a lot of information here, this is really just a beginning into the details of decision making.
If our movement is really going to achieve real transformation, we will need to go beyond consensus and strive towards what we all actually Want, instead of what we are willing to go along with.
And remember, how you open your process to your members, for what will be agreed upon, defines the proposals themselves. If you only have to get 90% agreement to pass a proposal, then people will automatically try to pass proposals they think will only be able to get 90% approval. Also a 90% approval means that if you talk to someone who doesn't agree with your proposal, you propose it anyways cause they could be one of those 10%. If you need consensus, it changes everything. People wont even propose anything they don't think there is a possibility of 100% agreement. If you talk to a member and they disagree with your proposal, you MUST take that individual into account and change your proposal accordingly, you can NEVER disregard anybody. Consensus changes the entire dialogue of which types of proposals come up for vote to begin with.
Well, let me know if you have more questions, and sorry this was so long. I could give you links for a few 100 more pages I'm sure. hehehe.
Jay
Jay Blas Jacob Cabrera
PS. If you can't make the meetings, You can vote for what times work best for you. We must always be open to changing our meeting times, and real participatory democracy uses a plurality to agree on Meeting Times outside of meetings using surveys and forms. Our goal is to get as many people as possible, not a smaller group of "who is already at meetings".
Just click on the Main Pad link and click on the Scheduling Link:
On Jan 19, 2012, at 12:05 AM, Kevin Hengehold wrote:
Jay/Global Assemblies,
Solidarity! I apologize if this is spam - I'm not sure exactly whose email this is.
I'm unable to attend the calls as scheduled (1pm MST is right in the middle of the work day), so I thought I'd to write my query: how do the other GA's interpret Blocks? We say that it's deadly serious, should only be used once or twice in your life, and it means you'll leave if the proposal goes through. Then discussion stops. There's never a chance of the Blocker actually leaving the Assembly. Is this how it's supposed to be? We do have 90-10 consensus; do other GA's with modified consensus have a way around blocks? Or are we comfortable with the fact that anyone can stop everything?
Thanks again for your work.
Peace, love, and Occupy,
kevin
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 9:22 PM, <national-facilit...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Jay/ Global Assemblies <g...@wc.tc> Jan 18 05:54PM -0800
Hey Everyone,
This is a reminder for tomorrow's Facilitation / GA Process Call. Jan 19th, 12pm PST, 3pm EST.
For those who want to help out, this email is exactly the kind of email that I shouldn't be sending out.
We NEED someone to volunteer to send out reminder emails. It isn't that hard, and there will be weeks where I simply can't do it, so people should step up and take turns, please let me know if you would like to volunteer.
To make everything simpler for the future, I have gone ahead and created a Main Pad for the Facilitation / GA Process Group. With this link you will have everything you need to know, now and into the future. Here is the link:
http://titanpad.com/FacilitationGAprocessCall (Note: This is good to do for all groups, and I've been wanting to do this for a while, I've just been too busy.)
For those who don't want to go to the link, all the most important information is bellow:
I will not be on the call tomorrow, but I will be on 30 minutes earily to help get everything set up.
If you are NEW, or would like to volunteer to help coordinate the call, please get on early so we can deal with all the details before the call starts so that regulars do not need to listen to all the same info at the beginning and we can jump right into the material.
Thanks everyone,
Jay
(415) 323-5833
NEXT CALL-In Details:
Set UP Call starts 30 minutes early at 11:30am PST, 2:30pm PST:
Free conference call #: (209) 647 1600 Access Code: 891526
Link to Call for January 19th, 2012 12 noon PST 3pm EST:
http://myaccount.maestroconference.com/conference/register/RB4H0UMXFIX40SI
Notes & Agendas:
Jan 19th, 2012: http://titanpad.com/FacGAprcJan19
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group national-facilitation-training-wg.
Cal
Jan 29, 2012, 10:40:00 AM1/29/12
to national-facilit...@googlegroups.com
Jared,
I'm trying to read your response but I can't see separation between what I wrote and your comments.� (I'm partially color-blind, so if you are using a dark color like red or brown, I can't really see it.� I request that you either use a symbol or a color that's not quite so dark, or break the quoting like I'm doing below.
Cal
I'm trying to read your response but I can't see separation between what I wrote and your comments.� (I'm partially color-blind, so if you are using a dark color like red or brown, I can't really see it.� I request that you either use a symbol or a color that's not quite so dark, or break the quoting like I'm doing below.
Cal
On 1/27/12 1:58 AM, Jared Iorio wrote:
Hi Jared,
I appreciate your response and enjoying the discussion.� In saying "most of what I offer here is not specific to the Occupy movement" I spoke to many long-used definitions and attributes of consensus.�
Other than a technology-based definition within Wikipedia to describe blocking IP addresses, the use of the term "hard block" appears to be unique to Occupy.� (I haven't found any uses of it prior to 2011.)� From what I've seen generally, in most consensus-based contexts, a block is a block.� Are you making a distinction between "block" and a "hard block"?�
I think it's just flavor Cal, with no real difference in substance.
Got it.
When you say "membership groups" does that include working groups/committees?� IOW, is this distinction between a distinction between consensus in GAs and consensus in working groups/committees?
I mean, basically, that there is a lot of flux in Occupy. Most of the prior consensus process has been worked out in groups where there is a relatively static, known membership (think Quakers). You can literally walk into an Occupy meeting or GA and get thrown right in the mix, with wildly divergent backgrounds and ideologies, and no trust whatsoever.
Agreed.� Thanks for the elaboration.
That's right, Oakland doesn't work on consensus, hence the desire to re-work the GA decision-making process.� What's confusing?�
I tend to block more often than many people (and this has been true much longer than Occupy).� When I block, it's because I see an incongruence with one or more principles.� The effort I referred to to re-work the Oakland GA decision-making process (Oakland doesn't work on consensus, they straight up vote, so I'm a bit confused) will include working up some specific scenarios.� (So far, we're using one in which a train carrying needed supplies is going to go off a cliff if the measure passes, and looking for better ones.� We're trying to find examples wherein there is no other workable solution other than to not do the action, i.e., the only choices are do it or not do it.)� This is in part because Jay suggested that a block is somehow illegitimate if the blocker doesn't offer a solution; I opine that is not a valid test for legitimacy because (a) the blocker may not be creative enough to provide a solution or (b) there may be no other solution than not making the decision.�
(I'm not clear what you mean by "organizers"; could you clarify?)� The proposers might not have thought this through to the degree.� And if the organizers don't see that the train is going off a cliff, does that mean I don't have a legitimate concern?I'm sorry, but most of these are really subjective. If a train is going to go off a cliff? I'm sure you might think a certain action might be like a train going off a cliff, but obviously the organizers don't. And no one knows until it's done, do they? Hard-blocking stuff because you don't like it goes entirely against the consensus process and any hope for empowering individuals to act autonomously. There needs to be a clear and present and explainable moral or ethical dilemma to use your veto power, not simply being slightly out of line with a principle (in your opinion!).�
I agree that blocking something just because "I don't like it" isn't in line with consensus.� But "this would damage the movement" and "I don't like it" aren't the same...and I'm not saying "I don't like it."� (And I could see some people leaving over something that could damage the movement.)� I tend to use this approach to point out something that the proposers seemingly aren't seeing.�� "If you do this, this will likely (or may likely) happen" doesn't much resemble "I don't like it."� Again, the argument must be a reasoned one; this is fundamental to consensus.
Let's consider the example of holding a GA inside a police station (one proposal that was brought in Oakland).� This could likely be dangerous and people could get hurt), and so forth.� If such things aren't sufficiently addressed, my block could stand.
I would block if any of these are true (and this is not an exhaustive list):
- The measure is out of alignment with one or more principles.
- The measure would damage the community or movement (even more so if it's something that's irreversible).
- The measure would likely produce an outcome other than (and often, the opposite of) the desired one.
- The measure would threaten the integrating of the movement's functioning.
Standing aside is fairly ineffective IMO, if the house is about to burn down.(None of these necessarily fall under either rubric of "threatens the solidarity of the movement" or "prepared to walk away.")�
For example, how could you actually know any of the things listed above, they're just opinions, let people do what they think best. You don't have to do it, you can stand aside. That's horizontalism. That's freedom. That opens the door for consensus, by having a dialogue about your concerns, not by shutting down conversation with a block.�
Sure, likewise.I would not likely walk away from the movement over most things that I would block; but if this kept happens I very well might.� And solidarity doesn't "compute" to me here in Oakland.� There are splits within the movement in Oakland, some of them fundamental.� For example, proposals to stand for non-violence have been defeated more than once.� There are many who find this problematic, and some (but not all) of them, have stepped back because of this.
I do like the paragraph "A hard block must be explained in terms of..." because it allows for more reasons for blocking than "threatens the solidarity of the movement and / or is prepared to walk away", neither of which would apply for many/most of my blocks.�
Just some quick thoughts, thanks for the outlook. � � �
Curious,
Cal
On 1/20/12 12:49 AM, Jared Iorio wrote:
Hi Cal,�
I take a bit of an issue with your reasoning about a hard block. While what you say may be true in most consensus-based�membership groups -- I'm not sure it applies here. With a fluctuating membership, we don't have the same levels of trust or familiarity as those other groups, throwing everything we might have learned in other consensus groups a curveball.
Generally, a hard block is to be used sparingly, it most literally means that there is a moral and ethical disagreement -- and there better be -- to stop a group of autonomous individuals from doing something that they want to do!
Most things that are being blocked here in Los Angeles are things someone doesn't like, or something someone doesn't approve of, or has conflicting ideologies with. Not a valid reason.�
We've been working through various definitions as of late and entertaining some reconciliation type adjustments to clear these hurdles.�
This was consented to at GA a few weeks ago:
Type: Process/Rule
Submitted by: Facilitation Committee
History: To be heard at GA on January 9th, 2012;� CONSENTED TO, WITH AMENDMENTS
What: Change the Definition of a Hard Block
Why:
The current definition of a hard block, is that an individual feels it threatens the solidarity of the movement and / or is prepared to walk away. The �walking away from the movement� definition has proved unsatisfactory and detrimental to an individual with strong concerns who does not necessarily want to walk away.
A hard block must be explained in terms of HOW the individual thinks it threatens the solidarity of the movement. What voices or groups may it marginalize or alienate? What principle of solidarity might it directly violate? How does it threaten the safety of the individual or group?What serious moral or ethical concern does it raise? A hard block must be explained in terms of the proposal�s perceived relationship to, or impacting of, the founding principles of the movement, and cannot simply be made because an individual does not �like� something.
Just food for thought.�
Jared Iorio
On Jan 19, 2012, at 10:27 PM, Cal wrote:
I'll add a few more comments on consensus, some of which are just enhancements or tweaks to what Jay wrote.� I'm just about to (re)convene a working group that's wanting to rework its GA, including (especially, for some) its decision making process.� So this is very present for me just now.� Note that most of what I offer here is not specific to the Occupy movement.
Technically, (a) voting and (b) consensus vs. majority, etc., are different matters.
Yes, as Jay suggests, even a 99% vote is still a super-duper-majority.� As soon as one person who objects is overriden, then you no longer have consensus.� And rather than calling majority voting a "simple governance system" (because, to me, consensus is pretty simple, though it takes a while for a group to get good at it), I'd call it "decision by majority" (compared with "decision by all").
There are methods called "consensus minus one", "consensus minus two," etc.� These aren't consensus, for the reason I just mentioned, but those terms do in fact suggest that it's not actually full consensus.
Here are a few additional things to know about consensus, voting, etc.
- Consensus is used in many places around the world for decision-making, and I often say "a consensus process is used for decision-making here."
- Consensus can be the decision-making process used in governance (though it's pretty rare so far).
- Voting and consensus are not mutually exclusive concepts.� Some form of voting is used in many consensus processes.
- Voting and blocking are compatible.
- In cohousing, which has used consensus for years, it can take a year to decide what to do with a tool shed.
- Most commonly, in consensus, no decision shall be made that any member/entity doesn't want to live with.� (I much prefer "live with it" rather than "going along with it."� IMO, it's too easy for someone to feel like they're going along with something due to the sheer number of people who are in favor of something, kind of like peer pressure, whereas living with it suggests more autonomy on the part of a non-enthusiast.)
- Also, there is no verb "to consense."� Rather than saying "we consensed on xyz," one would say "we have consensus on xyz."� ("Consensed" sounds awfully close to "incensed" which, to me, would tend to express more the opposite of consensus. <grin>)
- To confuse matters, the commonly used sentence "The general consensus on xyz is..." is synonymous with taking the temperature, in which you don't need actual consensus.
Two voting methods used in consensus
Some consensus-based groups have a three-position switch -- for example, thumb-up, thumb-down, thumb-sideways.
- A thumb up is "I'm good with that."
- A thumb down is "I'm not good with that."
- A thumb sideways usually means "I'm standing aside" or "I abstain" (which, to me, are different in subtle ways).� This can be used to indicate a number of things:
��� - "I don't care one way or the other.� I'm good either way."
��� - "The matter isn't important or interesting to me."
��� - "I have some concern but don't need to block it if the group wants it."
In some consensus-based groups, they make a distinction between a thumb down and blocking.� Personally, I don't see much difference.� If someone's against it, but not wanting to block, probably better to use a sideways.� To me, a thumb down vote means "No, don't do it."�� For me, that *is* a block.
Also, from what I've seen, in most consensus-based groups, thumb-down objections are heard, and in some groups, a concern accompanying a thumb-sideways vote is often heard.
A shortcut that some groups use is just to ask if there are any objections.� This is effective in quick decision-making or just to confirm a decision after a lot of discussion.� For substantial decisions, I prefer seeing all three positions.� For me, the strength of a decision is important.� For example, if 10 people are participating and 2 vote up and 7 vote sideways, I'd say that's a weak decision.� Some groups take that into account when considering whether a decision is robust or how likely it will "stick."
Blocking and Occupy
In some Occupys, it's stated as "A block would indicate that you would leave the organization if this isn't resolved."� Personally, I find that rather extreme, and I believe it's used to discourage blocking.� I tend to use a block when it looks to me like a train is going to be derailed in some way.� I would generally not leave an organization over an unresolved block of mine, but if enough of these happen, and the principles behind my blocks are consistent, then I start to consider that I may just not be aligned with the organization and begin to question why I'm here.� Remember this is not done simply because others may think differently than I do, but because there is a principle or principles at stake.
I also have a sense that many folks in some Occupys are afraid of blocks.� We are so programmed in the masculine way that says "We *have* to make a decision."� Well yes, if you're a doctor saving a bleeding patient's life, certainly.� But most decisions can be tabled or even defeated (to return in some modified form another day...or not).
Legitimacy of a block
Another suggested adjustment to what Jay said:� A person who is blocking doesn't have to have an alternative, other than to not do what the decision calls for.� It's reasonable to say "That will produce this undesirable result" and name it, but not have an alternative.� (Jay, I've never seen that used to judge a block as illegitimate.)� If the train is going to run off the cliff, and I'm the only one blocking, the only alternative might be to not run the train (and therefore not deliver the cargo).� This is a rather nuanced matter.� Everywhere I've seen consensus, what makes a block legitimate is whether it's principled.
Additional notes
There's frequently an important corollary to the consensus concept:� "No member shall unreasonably withhold consent."� Generally, a person who is blocking ought to be bringing a principled objection.� This is key to making a consensus process work well.� One way of viewing participation in consensus is "Are you able to live with it, such that you can give consent?"
[There are a small number of groups that use what I call "better-than-consensus" or "beyond consensus" in which they strive for a high degree of alignment, and where "I can live with it" isn't seen as supportive and usually not sufficient.� A discussion of this is beyond the scope of this thread, and less likely (or at least rather more difficult) to work well in groups with completely open and diverse membership as is found in most Occupys.� Though I know this sort of thing is used here and there, I've personal only seen two organizations make that work well.]
Lastly, the groups I'm in (outside of Occupy) don't have formal processes (such as Jay's Default Measure Process) for getting from a block to full consensus.� There are a number of steps that can be employed -- discussion, debate, dialogue, brainstorming.
My 2 cents... l
Cal
On 1/19/12 11:44 AM, Jay/ Global Assemblies wrote:
Hey Kevin, �I'm going to CC this to who whole group.
We have this email list to answer questions just like this, and that is what this list is for so that in case something comes up in a GA that it can be dealt with outside of a scheduled call. �So I'm glad your asking this question :)
Just to repeat your question, you are asking how other GA's deal with blocks and ways of getting around it with modified consensus, and what a block means within a GA, how serious is it etc....
Quick Disclaimer: This is just my understanding of consensus, and as you talk to other experienced facilitators, you will get slightly different answers, but my answers are based on the most open, grass roots, participatory, and collaborative systems that I know about.
First off, Blocks are valid in the consensus process, and also, as you mention, are VERY serious, and important as they are the only way to stop something that you feel is against the mission of the organization itself.
Where there becomes confusion in the Movement is the difference between Consensus and Voting. �I really don't care how many times someone calls a up or down 9/10ths Vote a "Modified Consensus", it isn't. �It is simply a Super Majority Vote. �That is a simple reality and fact.
Because this movement is not supportive of governance voting overall, we use the terminology of "Modified Consensus" in replacement of Voting. �This is incorrect, and when you are Voting, there are NO BLOCKS. �It is simply a NO vote, it doesn't make sense to have a block when voting for a few different reasons which I will not get into. �So that is where the confusion comes from.
The way I like to explain it, is that "Consensus" is not a decision making system at all, but that Consensus is actually a PROCESS.
So the way I break it down is that the Consensus Process involves "striving towards consensus". �You can even strive towards supportive consensus or beyond consensus, but typically consensus is defined as "willing to go along with it", therefore you do not need to support a proposal to consent to it. �Most people interpret consensus as the Consensus Process with 100% agreement, but I see it as the agreement % is actually separate from the Consensus Process itself.
A Governance Voting system is where you vote up or down on a proposal, and if a certain percentage, that is less than 100%, of the group, 90%, 80%, 75%, 66%, 50%+1 etc... �votes yes, then the proposal passes. �Typically in Governance Systems you "Vote to Vote", or "Vote to end discussion" before the vote takes place. �Which you will see in many GA's. �It is very important to "Vote to end discussion", or it is easy to manipulate and push proposals through without getting everyone informed.
With consensus on the other hand, there is no need to "Vote to Vote", because there is no voting in the first place, you need consensus, which means that everyone is willing to go along with the proposal, and anyone can hold up the process.
Before I go into the details on each option for the individuals I want to explain "Modified Consensus".
For me Modified Consensus means that you still have Consensus as the foundational process. �Consensus is a Process and the goal must be to Strive towards consensus. � �Unless you are trying to "strive towards consensus", I don't think it should or can be called Consensus. �In other words if a group allows an up or down vote with a supermajority, it is not using consensus, but a simple governance system.
But if a group has a voting system that "strives towards consensus", but allows a default measure when consensus cannot be reached, that is a Modified Consensus Process.
In this way the Consensus Process is still used, but instead of having to have a 100% passing rate for every decision, there can be a Default measure, that allows a percentage vote to pass certain issues that cannot reach consensus.
The key difference is the Default Measure.
Example wording: "Modified Consensus is Striving towards consensus with a default process that concludes with a "90%" vote if consensus cannot be reached.
There are three very important parts to Modified Consensus:
1) Consensus is still the goal. �No one is able to put any proposal directly up for a super majority Vote. �It is not allowed, every proposal must strive towards consensus.2) There is a Default Measure Process for when consensus cannot be reached. �This does not mean that you directly default to governance voting, it means there is a multi-step process, usually 2-6 steps, that must be followed to have one last attempt at gaining consensus before voting can be used. (Sometimes this even involved an additional meeting)3) A value for the Super Majority Vote is given. �This can be as high as "consensus minus 1 person" which can be up to a 99%, or as low as 50%+1. Bellow 50%+1 is not even majority vote, but there are certain situations where even plurality is the best method for decision making: example: scheduling meetings. (different issue though, see PS).
So the part that is confusing to most people with Modified consensus, is that you simply can't modify the consensus part out of the equation or its not consensus anymore, it is just a supermajority vote.
Once people understand that, then the hard part is defining a clear Default measure process to transition from consensus to a super majority vote. �Typically the Default process consists of two main steps. �Straw poll on other options we can achieve consensus on, then last attempt at a friendly amendment before going to vote. �Yet those two main steps can have a few steps within them that the facilitator follows. �Also it is important if your doing it correctly that there is a vote to "agree we cannot reach consensus", aka "vote to end discussion" / "vote to vote", before you vote. �You would need the supermajority to agree to end discussion and not strive for consensus before a vote should be taken. �In other words 90% of the group needs to agree that it is clear the group cannot come to consensus on the proposal. �That does not mean they will support the proposal when it comes up for vote. �This is pretty much the same process used in governance voting.
Here is a link to a example of a Default Measure Process:�https://docs.google.com/document/d/11QqhFw7Wq1R0Br70YrnlgkU9Mwrhkb5fM_wcfkwO3mY/edit
So Lastly to clarify this entire process, I need to go through each option for the individual participant.
1) Approval, twinkles, YES (simple and no confusion on that)
2) Stand Aside, Abstain, Neutral, No preference, Undecided, willing to go along with it (basically for everyone that doesn't know, although there can be confusion)
3) No, Do not Agree, Have Concerns or Major Concerns, Needs improvement, have an amendment, not ready to vote, want more discussion, need more information (although clarification questions should always come first before voting). (This is where it can get a little confusing, a NO vote is NOT a Block, it is simply a statement of disapproval and should never be ignored. �Typically if you have a NO vote, you automatically get the floor to speak).�
4) Block, Dissent, Against the Mission of the Organization, Will leave if this goes through. (A block is definitely serious, and should not be used regularly, but we must realize that people are going to use it incorrectly and to be prepared for that.) (Within a super majority vote, there is no Block, just Yes and NO)
A few more details between No and Block:
a) Many serious organizations actually make it so that x# No votes = a block. �Example: 3 No's = Block. �Some groups even go for x# of Stand asides = a no or a block as well. �That means that you cannot pass a proposal with a few people ups and everyone else stand asides or No's.
b) Typically in a consensus process, a No vote equals continue discussion, and consensus is not achieved until everyone is at at least a stand aside. �Anyone with a No vote should minimally get a chance to speak and suggest improvements to get their agreement. �But there is also a process where the facilitator changes NO to only MAJOR CONCERNS, which is very different than a normal I don't like it, but that it has fundamental flaws that need to be addressed. �Even a Major Concern is not necessarily a Bock.)
c) Illegitimate No's and Blocks. �Many people feel they can simply say NO and Block whenever they want. �THIS IS NOT TRUE. In the consensus process there is a very fine line for a valid NO, or BLOCK. �Simply stated there must be reasoning and justification for such a move. �In other words they must have an alternative. �An illegitimate NO or Block is one where they are just saying NO or Blocking with no alternative. �That is against the consensus process since the consensus process requires movement through dialogue towards agreement. �If the individual is not willing to compromise or come up with alternatives other than not doing the proposal, then their NO or Block has no legitimacy. � They can still say no or Block all they want, but consensus can still be achieved and the No is simply recorded in the notes. �Anyone can say NO for almost any reason, including wanting more discussion before agreeing - even if they pretty much already agree, but a block is different. �You can Only block if you have a specific amendment or alternative proposal. �You cannot block just to block with no possibility of consensus, that is against the process itself.
So although there is a lot of information here, this is really just a beginning into the details of decision making.
If our movement is really going to achieve real transformation, we will need to go beyond consensus and strive towards what we all actually Want, instead of what we are willing to go along with.
And remember, how you open your process to your members, for what will be agreed upon, defines the proposals themselves. �If you only have to get 90% agreement to pass a proposal, then people will automatically try to pass proposals they think will only be able to get 90% approval. �Also a 90% approval means that if you talk to someone who doesn't agree with your proposal, you propose it anyways cause they could be one of those 10%. � If you need consensus, it changes everything. �People wont even propose anything they don't think there is a possibility of 100% agreement. �If you talk to a member and they disagree with your proposal, you MUST take that individual into account and change your proposal accordingly, you can NEVER disregard anybody. �Consensus changes the entire dialogue of which types of proposals come up for vote to begin with.
Well, let me know if you have more questions, and sorry this was so long. �I could give you links for a few 100 more pages I'm sure. �hehehe.
Jay
Jay Blas Jacob Cabrera
PS. �If you can't make the meetings, You can vote for what times work best for you. �We must always be open to changing our meeting times, and real participatory democracy uses a plurality to agree on Meeting Times outside of meetings using surveys and forms. �Our goal is to get as many people as possible, not a smaller group of "who is already at meetings".
Just click on the Main Pad link and click on the Scheduling Link:
On Jan 19, 2012, at 12:05 AM, Kevin Hengehold wrote:
Jay/Global Assemblies,
Solidarity! �I apologize if this is spam - I'm not sure exactly whose email this is. �
I'm unable to attend the calls as scheduled (1pm MST is right in the middle of the work day), so I thought I'd to write my query: �how do the other GA's interpret Blocks? �We say that it's deadly serious, should only be used once or twice in your life, and it means you'll leave if the proposal goes through. �Then discussion stops. �There's never a chance of the Blocker actually leaving the Assembly. �Is this how it's supposed to be? �We do have 90-10 consensus; do other GA's with modified consensus have a way around blocks? �Or are we comfortable with the fact that anyone can stop everything?
Thanks again for your work.
Peace, love, and Occupy,
kevin
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 9:22 PM, <national-facilit...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Jay/ Global Assemblies <g...@wc.tc> Jan 18 05:54PM -0800 �
Hey Everyone,
�
This is a reminder for tomorrow's Facilitation / GA Process Call. Jan 19th, 12pm PST, 3pm EST.
�
For those who want to help out, this email is exactly the kind of email that I shouldn't be sending out.
�
We NEED someone to volunteer to send out reminder emails. It isn't that hard, and there will be weeks where I simply can't do it, so people should step up and take turns, please let me know if you would like to volunteer.
�
To make everything simpler for the future, I have gone ahead and created a Main Pad for the Facilitation / GA Process Group. With this link you will have everything you need to know, now and into the future. Here is the link:
http://titanpad.com/FacilitationGAprocessCall (Note: This is good to do for all groups, and I've been wanting to do this for a while, I've just been too busy.)
�
For those who don't want to go to the link, all the most important information is bellow:
�
I will not be on the call tomorrow, but I will be on 30 minutes earily to help get everything set up.
If you are NEW, or would like to volunteer to help coordinate the call, please get on early so we can deal with all the details before the call starts so that regulars do not need to listen to all the same info at the beginning and we can jump right into the material.
�
Thanks everyone,
�
Jay
(415) 323-5833
�
NEXT CALL-In Details:
Set UP Call starts 30 minutes early at 11:30am PST, 2:30pm PST:
Free conference call #: (209) 647 1600 Access Code: 891526
Link to Call for January 19th, 2012 12 noon PST 3pm EST:
http://myaccount.maestroconference.com/conference/register/RB4H0UMXFIX40SI
�
Scheduling Form: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dGhlZnhDWnBMQ2EtbUQ2dEZ1alg0eWc6MA
�
Notes & Agendas:
Jan 19th, 2012: http://titanpad.com/FacGAprcJan19
�
Jared Iorio
Jan 29, 2012, 2:11:57 PM1/29/12
to national-facilit...@googlegroups.com, national-facilit...@googlegroups.com
Sorry about the color issue, first time I've run into that.
Thanks for bringing up a concrete example. It works really well to illustrate my only point in all of this.
Organizers (of an action) want to hold a GA inside a police station.
Are you saying that the organizers and the people ready to consent to this are not aware that there may be legal issue, the chance of arrest and the chance of brutality by doing this? That they aren't aware it could cause public opinion backlash?
There should be no need for a block to make these concerns known. This should come up in the concerns period of the discussion. You have the chance to make your case there. You might even offer a friendly amendment to hold the GA outside the police station, for instance.
If those concerns are noted, and disagreed with by nearly all your comrades, you have the responsibility to stand aside and not block, in my opinion, and here's why.
There is no moral or ethical concern that could threaten the safety of their group. There is a tactical concern, sure, but not a moral or ethical one. There is a threat to safety, but not because they're planning something ethically or morally wrong, but because they're planning something audacious but morally are in the right.
There is not a moral issue with holding a GA in a police station. It is public space, being used by an institution that is oppressing us. Taking our message into the halls and lawns of power has been a relatively consented to tactic throughout the occupy movement.
If for instance , the plan was to hold a GA inside a police station, but you needed to beat and detain 4 cops to get inside, that would raise a moral or ethical concern.
In the latter case your hard block would be valid. In the former you simply don't like it. Subjectively you might think its stupid, and dangerous. But part of our movement has been the overwhelming stress on supporting autonomy unless it clearly violates of principles. Show me a principle it violates Cal.
Without this respect for autonomy, what you end up with is a place where everyone tries to control everyone else's action through their veto power, further disenfranchising people who have came out into the streets simply on the basis that they are fed up with having no control over their lives. You're asking them, nay, forcing them to go from the state controlling them to you controlling them.
Consensus does not equal unanimity. It is a way to build support through conversation and willingness to accept ideas that are in line with the original, a wa to synthesize the groups wisdom into something better than you could come up with myself, not an asking of permission, a rubber stamp.
When making a proposal you're not asking permission, you're asking for help from people who are interested in the same thing as are. When blocks are used the way you describe using them, it only serves to marginalized often already marginalized voices, and is not in the interest of inclusiveness or autonomy.
Jared,
I'm trying to read your response but I can't see separation between what I wrote and your comments. (I'm partially color-blind, so if you are using a dark color like red or brown, I can't really see it. I request that you either use a symbol or a color that's not quite so dark, or break the quoting like I'm doing below.
Cal
On 1/27/12 1:58 AM, Jared Iorio wrote:
Hi Jared,
I appreciate your response and enjoying the discussion. In saying "most of what I offer here is not specific to the Occupy movement" I spoke to many long-used definitions and attributes of consensus.
Other than a technology-based definition within Wikipedia to describe blocking IP addresses, the use of the term "hard block" appears to be unique to Occupy. (I haven't found any uses of it prior to 2011.) From what I've seen generally, in most consensus-based contexts, a block is a block. Are you making a distinction between "block" and a "hard block"?
I think it's just flavor Cal, with no real difference in substance.
Got it.
When you say "membership groups" does that include working groups/committees? IOW, is this distinction between a distinction between consensus in GAs and consensus in working groups/committees?
I mean, basically, that there is a lot of flux in Occupy. Most of the prior consensus process has been worked out in groups where there is a relatively static, known membership (think Quakers). You can literally walk into an Occupy meeting or GA and get thrown right in the mix, with wildly divergent backgrounds and ideologies, and no trust whatsoever.
Agreed. Thanks for the elaboration.
That's right, Oakland doesn't work on consensus, hence the desire to re-work the GA decision-making process. What's confusing?
I tend to block more often than many people (and this has been true much longer than Occupy). When I block, it's because I see an incongruence with one or more principles. The effort I referred to to re-work the Oakland GA decision-making process (Oakland doesn't work on consensus, they straight up vote, so I'm a bit confused) will include working up some specific scenarios. (So far, we're using one in which a train carrying needed supplies is going to go off a cliff if the measure passes, and looking for better ones. We're trying to find examples wherein there is no other workable solution other than to not do the action, i.e., the only choices are do it or not do it.) This is in part because Jay suggested that a block is somehow illegitimate if the blocker doesn't offer a solution; I opine that is not a valid test for legitimacy because (a) the blocker may not be creative enough to provide a solution or (b) there may be no other solution than not making the decision.
I'm sorry, but most of these are really subjective. If a train is going to go off a cliff? I'm sure you might think a certain action might be like a train going off a cliff, but obviously the organizers don't. And no one knows until it's done, do they? Hard-blocking stuff because you don't like it goes entirely against the consensus process and any hope for empowering individuals to act autonomously. There needs to be a clear and present and explainable moral or ethical dilemma to use your veto power, not simply being slightly out of line with a principle (in your opinion!).
(I'm not clear what you mean by "organizers"; could you clarify?) The proposers might not have thought this through to the degree. And if the organizers don't see that the train is going off a cliff, does that mean I don't have a legitimate concern?
I agree that blocking something just because "I don't like it" isn't in line with consensus. But "this would damage the movement" and "I don't like it" aren't the same...and I'm not saying "I don't like it." (And I could see some people leaving over something that could damage the movement.) I tend to use this approach to point out something that the proposers seemingly aren't seeing. "If you do this, this will likely (or may likely) happen" doesn't much resemble "I don't like it." Again, the argument must be a reasoned one; this is fundamental to consensus.
Let's consider the example of holding a GA inside a police station (one proposal that was brought in Oakland). This could likely be dangerous and people could get hurt), and so forth. If such things aren't sufficiently addressed, my block could stand.
I would block if any of these are true (and this is not an exhaustive list):
- The measure is out of alignment with one or more principles.
- The measure would damage the community or movement (even more so if it's something that's irreversible).
- The measure would likely produce an outcome other than (and often, the opposite of) the desired one.
- The measure would threaten the integrating of the movement's functioning.
(None of these necessarily fall under either rubric of "threatens the solidarity of the movement" or "prepared to walk away.")
For example, how could you actually know any of the things listed above, they're just opinions, let people do what they think best. You don't have to do it, you can stand aside. That's horizontalism. That's freedom. That opens the door for consensus, by having a dialogue about your concerns, not by shutting down conversation with a block.
Standing aside is fairly ineffective IMO, if the house is about to burn down.
I would not likely walk away from the movement over most things that I would block; but if this kept happens I very well might. And solidarity doesn't "compute" to me here in Oakland. There are splits within the movement in Oakland, some of them fundamental. For example, proposals to stand for non-violence have been defeated more than once. There are many who find this problematic, and some (but not all) of them, have stepped back because of this.
I do like the paragraph "A hard block must be explained in terms of..." because it allows for more reasons for blocking than "threatens the solidarity of the movement and / or is prepared to walk away", neither of which would apply for many/most of my blocks.
Just some quick thoughts, thanks for the outlook.
Sure, likewise.
Curious,
Cal
On 1/20/12 12:49 AM, Jared Iorio wrote:
Hi Cal,
I take a bit of an issue with your reasoning about a hard block. While what you say may be true in most consensus-based membership groups -- I'm not sure it applies here. With a fluctuating membership, we don't have the same levels of trust or familiarity as those other groups, throwing everything we might have learned in other consensus groups a curveball.
Generally, a hard block is to be used sparingly, it most literally means that there is a moral and ethical disagreement -- and there better be -- to stop a group of autonomous individuals from doing something that they want to do!
Most things that are being blocked here in Los Angeles are things someone doesn't like, or something someone doesn't approve of, or has conflicting ideologies with. Not a valid reason.
We've been working through various definitions as of late and entertaining some reconciliation type adjustments to clear these hurdles.
This was consented to at GA a few weeks ago:
Type: Process/Rule
Submitted by: Facilitation Committee
History: To be heard at GA on January 9th, 2012; CONSENTED TO, WITH AMENDMENTS
What: Change the Definition of a Hard Block
Why:
The current definition of a hard block, is that an individual feels it threatens the solidarity of the movement and / or is prepared to walk away. The ‘walking away from the movement’ definition has proved unsatisfactory and detrimental to an individual with strong concerns who does not necessarily want to walk away.
A hard block must be explained in terms of HOW the individual thinks it threatens the solidarity of the movement. What voices or groups may it marginalize or alienate? What principle of solidarity might it directly violate? How does it threaten the safety of the individual or group?What serious moral or ethical concern does it raise? A hard block must be explained in terms of the proposal’s perceived relationship to, or impacting of, the founding principles of the movement, and cannot simply be made because an individual does not ‘like’ something.
Just food for thought.
Jared Iorio
On Jan 19, 2012, at 10:27 PM, Cal wrote:
I'll add a few more comments on consensus, some of which are just enhancements or tweaks to what Jay wrote. I'm just about to (re)convene a working group that's wanting to rework its GA, including (especially, for some) its decision making process. So this is very present for me just now. Note that most of what I offer here is not specific to the Occupy movement.
Technically, (a) voting and (b) consensus vs. majority, etc., are different matters.
Yes, as Jay suggests, even a 99% vote is still a super-duper-majority. As soon as one person who objects is overriden, then you no longer have consensus. And rather than calling majority voting a "simple governance system" (because, to me, consensus is pretty simple, though it takes a while for a group to get good at it), I'd call it "decision by majority" (compared with "decision by all").
There are methods called "consensus minus one", "consensus minus two," etc. These aren't consensus, for the reason I just mentioned, but those terms do in fact suggest that it's not actually full consensus.
Here are a few additional things to know about consensus, voting, etc.
- Consensus is used in many places around the world for decision-making, and I often say "a consensus process is used for decision-making here."
- Consensus can be the decision-making process used in governance (though it's pretty rare so far).
- Voting and consensus are not mutually exclusive concepts. Some form of voting is used in many consensus processes.
- Voting and blocking are compatible.
- In cohousing, which has used consensus for years, it can take a year to decide what to do with a tool shed.
- Most commonly, in consensus, no decision shall be made that any member/entity doesn't want to live with. (I much prefer "live with it" rather than "going along with it." IMO, it's too easy for someone to feel like they're going along with something due to the sheer number of people who are in favor of something, kind of like peer pressure, whereas living with it suggests more autonomy on the part of a non-enthusiast.)
- Also, there is no verb "to consense." Rather than saying "we consensed on xyz," one would say "we have consensus on xyz." ("Consensed" sounds awfully close to "incensed" which, to me, would tend to express more the opposite of consensus. <grin>)
- To confuse matters, the commonly used sentence "The general consensus on xyz is..." is synonymous with taking the temperature, in which you don't need actual consensus.
Two voting methods used in consensus
Some consensus-based groups have a three-position switch -- for example, thumb-up, thumb-down, thumb-sideways.
- A thumb up is "I'm good with that."
- A thumb down is "I'm not good with that."
- A thumb sideways usually means "I'm standing aside" or "I abstain" (which, to me, are different in subtle ways). This can be used to indicate a number of things:
- "I don't care one way or the other. I'm good either way."
- "The matter isn't important or interesting to me."
- "I have some concern but don't need to block it if the group wants it."
In some consensus-based groups, they make a distinction between a thumb down and blocking. Personally, I don't see much difference. If someone's against it, but not wanting to block, probably better to use a sideways. To me, a thumb down vote means "No, don't do it." For me, that *is* a block.
Also, from what I've seen, in most consensus-based groups, thumb-down objections are heard, and in some groups, a concern accompanying a thumb-sideways vote is often heard.
A shortcut that some groups use is just to ask if there are any objections. This is effective in quick decision-making or just to confirm a decision after a lot of discussion. For substantial decisions, I prefer seeing all three positions. For me, the strength of a decision is important. For example, if 10 people are participating and 2 vote up and 7 vote sideways, I'd say that's a weak decision. Some groups take that into account when considering whether a decision is robust or how likely it will "stick."
Blocking and Occupy
In some Occupys, it's stated as "A block would indicate that you would leave the organization if this isn't resolved." Personally, I find that rather extreme, and I believe it's used to discourage blocking. I tend to use a block when it looks to me like a train is going to be derailed in some way. I would generally not leave an organization over an unresolved block of mine, but if enough of these happen, and the principles behind my blocks are consistent, then I start to consider that I may just not be aligned with the organization and begin to question why I'm here. Remember this is not done simply because others may think differently than I do, but because there is a principle or principles at stake.
I also have a sense that many folks in some Occupys are afraid of blocks. We are so programmed in the masculine way that says "We *have* to make a decision." Well yes, if you're a doctor saving a bleeding patient's life, certainly. But most decisions can be tabled or even defeated (to return in some modified form another day...or not).
Legitimacy of a block
Another suggested adjustment to what Jay said: A person who is blocking doesn't have to have an alternative, other than to not do what the decision calls for. It's reasonable to say "That will produce this undesirable result" and name it, but not have an alternative. (Jay, I've never seen that used to judge a block as illegitimate.) If the train is going to run off the cliff, and I'm the only one blocking, the only alternative might be to not run the train (and therefore not deliver the cargo). This is a rather nuanced matter. Everywhere I've seen consensus, what makes a block legitimate is whether it's principled.
Additional notes
There's frequently an important corollary to the consensus concept: "No member shall unreasonably withhold consent." Generally, a person who is blocking ought to be bringing a principled objection. This is key to making a consensus process work well. One way of viewing participation in consensus is "Are you able to live with it, such that you can give consent?"
[There are a small number of groups that use what I call "better-than-consensus" or "beyond consensus" in which they strive for a high degree of alignment, and where "I can live with it" isn't seen as supportive and usually not sufficient. A discussion of this is beyond the scope of this thread, and less likely (or at least rather more difficult) to work well in groups with completely open and diverse membership as is found in most Occupys. Though I know this sort of thing is used here and there, I've personal only seen two organizations make that work well.]
Lastly, the groups I'm in (outside of Occupy) don't have formal processes (such as Jay's Default Measure Process) for getting from a block to full consensus. There are a number of steps that can be employed -- discussion, debate, dialogue, brainstorming.
My 2 cents... l
Cal
On 1/19/12 11:44 AM, Jay/ Global Assemblies wrote:
Hey Kevin, I'm going to CC this to who whole group.
We have this email list to answer questions just like this, and that is what this list is for so that in case something comes up in a GA that it can be dealt with outside of a scheduled call. So I'm glad your asking this question :)
Just to repeat your question, you are asking how other GA's deal with blocks and ways of getting around it with modified consensus, and what a block means within a GA, how serious is it etc....
Quick Disclaimer: This is just my understanding of consensus, and as you talk to other experienced facilitators, you will get slightly different answers, but my answers are based on the most open, grass roots, participatory, and collaborative systems that I know about.
First off, Blocks are valid in the consensus process, and also, as you mention, are VERY serious, and important as they are the only way to stop something that you feel is against the mission of the organization itself.
Where there becomes confusion in the Movement is the difference between Consensus and Voting. I really don't care how many times someone calls a up or down 9/10ths Vote a "Modified Consensus", it isn't. It is simply a Super Majority Vote. That is a simple reality and fact.
Because this movement is not supportive of governance voting overall, we use the terminology of "Modified Consensus" in replacement of Voting. This is incorrect, and when you are Voting, there are NO BLOCKS. It is simply a NO vote, it doesn't make sense to have a block when voting for a few different reasons which I will not get into. So that is where the confusion comes from.
The way I like to explain it, is that "Consensus" is not a decision making system at all, but that Consensus is actually a PROCESS.
So the way I break it down is that the Consensus Process involves "striving towards consensus". You can even strive towards supportive consensus or beyond consensus, but typically consensus is defined as "willing to go along with it", therefore you do not need to support a proposal to consent to it. Most people interpret consensus as the Consensus Process with 100% agreement, but I see it as the agreement % is actually separate from the Consensus Process itself.
A Governance Voting system is where you vote up or down on a proposal, and if a certain percentage, that is less than 100%, of the group, 90%, 80%, 75%, 66%, 50%+1 etc... votes yes, then the proposal passes. Typically in Governance Systems you "Vote to Vote", or "Vote to end discussion" before the vote takes place. Which you will see in many GA's. It is very important to "Vote to end discussion", or it is easy to manipulate and push proposals through without getting everyone informed.
With consensus on the other hand, there is no need to "Vote to Vote", because there is no voting in the first place, you need consensus, which means that everyone is willing to go along with the proposal, and anyone can hold up the process.
Before I go into the details on each option for the individuals I want to explain "Modified Consensus".
For me Modified Consensus means that you still have Consensus as the foundational process. Consensus is a Process and the goal must be to Strive towards consensus. Unless you are trying to "strive towards consensus", I don't think it should or can be called Consensus. In other words if a group allows an up or down vote with a supermajority, it is not using consensus, but a simple governance system.
But if a group has a voting system that "strives towards consensus", but allows a default measure when consensus cannot be reached, that is a Modified Consensus Process.
In this way the Consensus Process is still used, but instead of having to have a 100% passing rate for every decision, there can be a Default measure, that allows a percentage vote to pass certain issues that cannot reach consensus.
The key difference is the Default Measure.
Example wording: "Modified Consensus is Striving towards consensus with a default process that concludes with a "90%" vote if consensus cannot be reached.
There are three very important parts to Modified Consensus:
1) Consensus is still the goal. No one is able to put any proposal directly up for a super majority Vote. It is not allowed, every proposal must strive towards consensus.2) There is a Default Measure Process for when consensus cannot be reached. This does not mean that you directly default to governance voting, it means there is a multi-step process, usually 2-6 steps, that must be followed to have one last attempt at gaining consensus before voting can be used. (Sometimes this even involved an additional meeting)3) A value for the Super Majority Vote is given. This can be as high as "consensus minus 1 person" which can be up to a 99%, or as low as 50%+1. Bellow 50%+1 is not even majority vote, but there are certain situations where even plurality is the best method for decision making: example: scheduling meetings. (different issue though, see PS).
So the part that is confusing to most people with Modified consensus, is that you simply can't modify the consensus part out of the equation or its not consensus anymore, it is just a supermajority vote.
Once people understand that, then the hard part is defining a clear Default measure process to transition from consensus to a super majority vote. Typically the Default process consists of two main steps. Straw poll on other options we can achieve consensus on, then last attempt at a friendly amendment before going to vote. Yet those two main steps can have a few steps within them that the facilitator follows. Also it is important if your doing it correctly that there is a vote to "agree we cannot reach consensus", aka "vote to end discussion" / "vote to vote", before you vote. You would need the supermajority to agree to end discussion and not strive for consensus before a vote should be taken. In other words 90% of the group needs to agree that it is clear the group cannot come to consensus on the proposal. That does not mean they will support the proposal when it comes up for vote. This is pretty much the same process used in governance voting.
Here is a link to a example of a Default Measure Process: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11QqhFw7Wq1R0Br70YrnlgkU9Mwrhkb5fM_wcfkwO3mY/edit
So Lastly to clarify this entire process, I need to go through each option for the individual participant.
1) Approval, twinkles, YES (simple and no confusion on that)
2) Stand Aside, Abstain, Neutral, No preference, Undecided, willing to go along with it (basically for everyone that doesn't know, although there can be confusion)
3) No, Do not Agree, Have Concerns or Major Concerns, Needs improvement, have an amendment, not ready to vote, want more discussion, need more information (although clarification questions should always come first before voting). (This is where it can get a little confusing, a NO vote is NOT a Block, it is simply a statement of disapproval and should never be ignored. Typically if you have a NO vote, you automatically get the floor to speak).
4) Block, Dissent, Against the Mission of the Organization, Will leave if this goes through. (A block is definitely serious, and should not be used regularly, but we must realize that people are going to use it incorrectly and to be prepared for that.) (Within a super majority vote, there is no Block, just Yes and NO)
A few more details between No and Block:
a) Many serious organizations actually make it so that x# No votes = a block. Example: 3 No's = Block. Some groups even go for x# of Stand asides = a no or a block as well. That means that you cannot pass a proposal with a few people ups and everyone else stand asides or No's.
b) Typically in a consensus process, a No vote equals continue discussion, and consensus is not achieved until everyone is at at least a stand aside. Anyone with a No vote should minimally get a chance to speak and suggest improvements to get their agreement. But there is also a process where the facilitator changes NO to only MAJOR CONCERNS, which is very different than a normal I don't like it, but that it has fundamental flaws that need to be addressed. Even a Major Concern is not necessarily a Bock.)
c) Illegitimate No's and Blocks. Many people feel they can simply say NO and Block whenever they want. THIS IS NOT TRUE. In the consensus process there is a very fine line for a valid NO, or BLOCK. Simply stated there must be reasoning and justification for such a move. In other words they must have an alternative. An illegitimate NO or Block is one where they are just saying NO or Blocking with no alternative. That is against the consensus process since the consensus process requires movement through dialogue towards agreement. If the individual is not willing to compromise or come up with alternatives other than not doing the proposal, then their NO or Block has no legitimacy. They can still say no or Block all they want, but consensus can still be achieved and the No is simply recorded in the notes. Anyone can say NO for almost any reason, including wanting more discussion before agreeing - even if they pretty much already agree, but a block is different. You can Only block if you have a specific amendment or alternative proposal. You cannot block just to block with no possibility of consensus, that is against the process itself.
So although there is a lot of information here, this is really just a beginning into the details of decision making.
If our movement is really going to achieve real transformation, we will need to go beyond consensus and strive towards what we all actually Want, instead of what we are willing to go along with.
And remember, how you open your process to your members, for what will be agreed upon, defines the proposals themselves. If you only have to get 90% agreement to pass a proposal, then people will automatically try to pass proposals they think will only be able to get 90% approval. Also a 90% approval means that if you talk to someone who doesn't agree with your proposal, you propose it anyways cause they could be one of those 10%. If you need consensus, it changes everything. People wont even propose anything they don't think there is a possibility of 100% agreement. If you talk to a member and they disagree with your proposal, you MUST take that individual into account and change your proposal accordingly, you can NEVER disregard anybody. Consensus changes the entire dialogue of which types of proposals come up for vote to begin with.
Well, let me know if you have more questions, and sorry this was so long. I could give you links for a few 100 more pages I'm sure. hehehe.
Jay
Jay Blas Jacob Cabrera
PS. If you can't make the meetings, You can vote for what times work best for you. We must always be open to changing our meeting times, and real participatory democracy uses a plurality to agree on Meeting Times outside of meetings using surveys and forms. Our goal is to get as many people as possible, not a smaller group of "who is already at meetings".
Just click on the Main Pad link and click on the Scheduling Link:
On Jan 19, 2012, at 12:05 AM, Kevin Hengehold wrote:
Jay/Global Assemblies,
Solidarity! I apologize if this is spam - I'm not sure exactly whose email this is.
I'm unable to attend the calls as scheduled (1pm MST is right in the middle of the work day), so I thought I'd to write my query: how do the other GA's interpret Blocks? We say that it's deadly serious, should only be used once or twice in your life, and it means you'll leave if the proposal goes through. Then discussion stops. There's never a chance of the Blocker actually leaving the Assembly. Is this how it's supposed to be? We do have 90-10 consensus; do other GA's with modified consensus have a way around blocks? Or are we comfortable with the fact that anyone can stop everything?
Thanks again for your work.
Peace, love, and Occupy,
kevin
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 9:22 PM, <national-facilit...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Jay/ Global Assemblies <g...@wc.tc> Jan 18 05:54PM -0800
Hey Everyone,
This is a reminder for tomorrow's Facilitation / GA Process Call. Jan 19th, 12pm PST, 3pm EST.
For those who want to help out, this email is exactly the kind of email that I shouldn't be sending out.
We NEED someone to volunteer to send out reminder emails. It isn't that hard, and there will be weeks where I simply can't do it, so people should step up and take turns, please let me know if you would like to volunteer.
To make everything simpler for the future, I have gone ahead and created a Main Pad for the Facilitation / GA Process Group. With this link you will have everything you need to know, now and into the future. Here is the link:
http://titanpad.com/FacilitationGAprocessCall (Note: This is good to do for all groups, and I've been wanting to do this for a while, I've just been too busy.)
For those who don't want to go to the link, all the most important information is bellow:
I will not be on the call tomorrow, but I will be on 30 minutes earily to help get everything set up.
If you are NEW, or would like to volunteer to help coordinate the call, please get on early so we can deal with all the details before the call starts so that regulars do not need to listen to all the same info at the beginning and we can jump right into the material.
Thanks everyone,
Jay
(415) 323-5833
NEXT CALL-In Details:
Set UP Call starts 30 minutes early at 11:30am PST, 2:30pm PST:
Free conference call #: (209) 647 1600 Access Code: 891526
Link to Call for January 19th, 2012 12 noon PST 3pm EST:
http://myaccount.maestroconference.com/conference/register/RB4H0UMXFIX40SI
Notes & Agendas:
Jan 19th, 2012: http://titanpad.com/FacGAprcJan19
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group national-facilitation-training-wg.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages