RE: [wg-d] What our product should resemble

["David Schutt" <david@speco.com>]

This is one of those situations where you trade one potential abuse for
another. What you describe is the ability of some to effectively exclude
voices from the group (toss them out), and I for one can't think of any way
to prevent abuse of this power, especially when you're doing 'soft' work
such as politics or social policy or choosing ice cream.

If you're going to do something like this, it is then best to measure and
record the sense of the group through on the record voting. This way, those
who make the decision to override the minority can be identified and held
accountable for what they do.

Notice that we are back to majority (or supermajority) rule. The difference
is that what constitutes a minority is defined before a controversy erupts,
and to override the minority the majority must *all* go on the record as
supportive of the override.

Some of the power of a true consensus is regained when one can say "thus and
such a percentage of the interested parties agreed that it was important
enough to implement a decision that we stop debate and move on". True
consensus is almost unassailable, *if* the group contains all of the
interested parties.

Rough consensus, absent formal definition, is a very shaky platform on which
to stand. Someone trying to judge the quality of the decision making will
realize that the outcome *could* have come about simply because a few
participants had the audacity to drive dissenters away or otherwise shut
them out. No way to tell, and thus no way to judge the quality of the
process.

That leaves every decision vulnerable to constant challenge. Not a good
position to be in.

D Schutt


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-d@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-d@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
Sent: Friday, August 27, 1999 10:43 AM
To: David Schutt
Cc: Wg-D@Dnso. Org
Subject: RE: [wg-d] What our product should resemble


This is a useful discussion we should have.

I personally reasonably comfortable with the concept of "rough consensus".
I take it to mean that there ALMOST a true consensus...but a small number
may be left out and the (vast) majority believe that (1) the minority is
small; (2) its concerns are either zany or at best deeply mistaken; and
(3) life must go on.

While I love consensus, I fear the heckler's veto.  And I say this as one
who thinks he's more likely to be a heckler...

The critical point for me is that to be a rough consensus the majority
must be prepared to explain why it is they feel justified in overriding
the view of the minority.  And merely saying "we don't agree with them"
isn't enough -- that's mere majority rule.  It should take quite a lot
more--a sense that logic has prevailed, and some people aren't being
logical.

I would be the first to add, of course, that this concept works best when
the issues are logical or technical ones, rather than political or
aesthetic. Rough consensus works badly when the choice is chocolate or
vanilla ice cream. (Then you need to change the option set to include free
choice.  Or we're back at majority rule.)


<snip>

--
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                 -->   It's hot and humid here.   <--