<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[wg-review] 7. [Names Council] Confusion between majority vote and consensus
NOTE: I'm moving this portion of the "Number 1 Problem" thread to this
header, in accordance with my own suggestion to use the headers YJ
suggested. I ignored that when starting that thread *blush*
It's wonderful to see so many people addressing this issue seriously, and I
appreciate the time taken by all to comment.
Hopefully, we're all learning something, and I'd like to address a couple
of issues here. For those of you who have requested more materials on
consensus building, I'm putting together a list of links and will hopefully
have it up in the next couple of days.
On 08:17 PM 1/4/01, Milton Mueller said:
>The pursuit of consensus, which in my book (and I worked with the Quakers
>in anti-draft activity) means unanimity, or at least the unwillingness of
>anyone to block action by the rest of the group.
On 08:37 AM 1/5/01, Kent Crispin said:
>Second, at the most basic level we can define a consensus process as one
>in which small minorities have a veto.
These are similar enough in intent that I can agree with both. I'm a
"Quaker consensus" purist, myself - "consensus" means no one is willing to
block it, "true consensus" means unanimity. "Quaker consensus" is the most
common form of consensus process in general use, though there are others.
On 08:37 AM 1/5/01, Kent Crispin said:
>>...it would be a good idea for people to re-read Article VI-B of the
Bylaws, which describes the DNSO.
An excellent suggestion, Kent. While I'd glanced through them before, I
hadn't actually READ the relevant section. I should have.
----bylaws excerpt from VI-B Section 2-----
(d) If two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the NC determine that the DNSO
process has produced a community
consensus, that consensus position shall be forwarded to the Board as a
consensus recommendation, along with
all materials or other information that could reasonably be relevant to
the Board's review of that determination,
including (but not limited to) the dissenting statement(s) of any
member(s) of the NC.
----------end excerpt
The significant fact here as far as this discussion goes is that
"consensus" as used here in the by-laws does not describe actual consensus.
A majority vote (with any sized majority) is still a majority vote. While
it may be useful at times to call a spade a shovel, it rarely helps
communication to call a spade a sledgehammer. This misuse of language in
the bylaws is in itself a structural impediment to understanding the actual
process, let alone achieving consensus.
----from the bylaws, VI-B section 2---
(b) The NC is responsible for the management of the consensus building
process of the DNSO.
----end excerpt
The NC is placed in an impossible situation through this corruption of the
term. If 2/3 of ANYONE declare that they have a consensus, someone who
disagrees can quite properly claim that there was nothing resembling
consensus achieved on the issue, and a majority (I'm being conservative
here, I actually believe a near-consensus) of people with experience in
REAL consensus process will agree with them. And yet if 2/3 of the NC agree
on a position, they are (apparently) BOUND to declare it a consensus
decision. Personally, I would refuse to serve in such a situation, since
being set up as a target is not part of my personal agenda.
--------------------------------
So - here is another statement - can we agree on it?
Calling the current DNSO process "consensus" is misleading. The Board
should either amend the bylaws to reflect that decision making is by
majority vote, or adopt a true consensus process.
Regards,
Greg
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|