[wg-review] 7. [Names Council] Confusion between majority vote and consensus

[Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com>]

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