[Imc-dc-editorial] Zoe's comments

[Zoe Mitchell]

My comments are under the text...

B.) How does the editorial group make decisions?
Consensus process vs. majority rule.
           A discussion was held on consensus
process vs. majority rule. Zoe said the consensus
process does not work because it allows for the
tyranny of the minority because people can block
if they do not agree.

<b>Zoe responds: Actually, not only does
consensus exemplify "tyranny of the minority"
with blocking, but it also exemplifies "tyranny
of the majority" because the majority is more
likely to manipulate the dissenting members than
allow them to block. (Again, read Jane
Mansbridge's Beyond Adversary Democracy...for the
best account of this.) </b>

 A discussion was held. Others said the consensus
process is intended to address everybody’s
concerns in the group to reach a decision, and
that people should only block if they believe a
decision goes against the mission of the group.
It was noted that within the DC IMC editorial
group blocks have been made not because people
believe a decision goes against the mission of
the group but because people want more time to
discuss a feature. No decision was reached and
the issue was tabled for further discussion.
 
Agreed:
           It was proposed and passed that people
in the editorial group have the ability to
“request more time” to discuss a feature for up
to 12 hours before the feature is put on the
website. Each person can only make this request
once per feature. If the request for more time is
not made, the existing editorial policy for
creating features will be followed.
           Zoe voted No on this proposal.
<b> Zoe responds: Since I disagree that consensus
process should be used as a decision making
policy, I can not agree that consensus should be
used to determine anything. Since we only agreed
to a minor reform here, and not a substantitive
reevaluation of the process itself, I could not
support it. Now, voting "no" does not constitute
a "block"--since I don't believe in consensus.
Voting "no" here also doesn't mean "standing
aside" which I believe abdicates individual
responsibility. Instead, voting "no" is like
voting against a policy I don't like to emphasize
the greater degree of legitimacy present in a
majority rule decision making process. The
majority supported the nominal change, I didn't.
But, this new policy will be implemented
regardless of my "no" vote. In consensus process,
if I stood aside I would be allowing the
collective to make decisions without my consent.
I can't do that. In consensus process, if I
blocked, I would be responsible for derailing the
 group's initiative. I can't do that. Instead, I
vote "no."</b>

zoe
 

=====
Zoe Mitchell
Zoe's Diary http://dc.indymedia.org/zoe.php3
Beyond Zoe's Diary http://zoe_mitchell.pitas.com
202-253-2990 or 202-387-3374

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/