[New-imc] Breaking down the blocks: Arc and Freedom

[Jay]

Hi,

As far as I understand, many IMCs use many variants of consensus, each 
finding its own particular way to be its most effective.  Many do use 
formal consensus, but I don't think all do.  The question here is, are 
there forms of consensus-based organizing that allow for 2/3 or other types 
of deadlock-breaking votes?  Does having a 2/3 majority fallback option 
available to break deadlocks mean that an IMC is not committed to the 
principle of consensus decision-making?  Perhaps formal consensus does not 
allow for this, do the principles of unity dictate, or were ever intended 
to dictate, that every IMC exclusively use formal consensus?

The new-imc group would certainly benefit from having a clearer definition 
of what the principles of unity mean by "consensus."  Does anyone have 
links to any good, clear web sites on the different kinds of 
consensus-based decision-making?

For this case, the principle states:
an IMC "shall organize themselves collectively and be committed to the 
principle of consensus decision making and the development of a [direct, 
participatory democratic process] that is transparent to its membership"

I personally don't think that an IMC's having a 2/3 majority fallback 
option means, inherently, that is is not committed to the principle of 
consensus decision-making.  But, that's the point we have to hash out.

Jay

At 4/24/2003, you wrote:
>It is an essential aspect of consensus that blocking concerns must go to 
>the principles of the group.
>
>Allowing for 2/3 decision making to break deadlocks or in other such 
>situations is clearly in line with the principle that IMCs:
>
>"shall organize themselves collectively and be committed to the principle 
>of consensus decision making and the development of a [direct, 
>participatory democratic process] that is transparent to its membership"
>
>This language clearly, purposefully and resolutely invokes a creative form 
>that allows membership to decide it's own processes.
>
>If a local decides, for example, that 2/3 voting in certain situations is 
>preferable to causing several members to leave the group, or to avoid 
>continual deadlocks, it may very well be the process most in line with 
>these principles.
>
>It is ironic to read that Arc and Freedom are so commited to their 
>definition of consensus that they continue to invoke it after it failed to 
>reach consensus in their collective.
>
>Also, just imagine the ridiculous stand-off that could ensue - Arc could 
>block Roge unless they drop 2/3 and I could block Rogue unless they keep 
>2/3....
>
>and, as boud1 pointed out to me,
>
> >http://truffula.net/pipermail/imc/2003-April/
> >It's clear that IMC Rogue people are debating the issue, they are
> >likely to spend time having practice with consensus training, some
> >people favour 2/3, some favour consensus, but they're surely advanced
> >enough in discussing this, on an openly archived list, and aware of
> >the different possibilities, that they can be trusted by the network
> >to come to a decision on decision-making which is similar enough to
> >what other Indy collectives apply.
>
>I feel that Arc and Freedom's categoric blocking of an IMC for invoking 
>2/3 forms of decision making must be set aside.
>
>Peace,
>Nick
>
>_______________________________________________
>New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
>New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/new-imc