[New-imc] Indymedia's definition of Consensus is not 3/4 fall back vote

[PseudoPunk]

freedom wrote:
> Jay,
> You asked for links concerning consensus.     I'll repeat here the link that
> was previously posted concerning Indymedia's documents, and list three others 
> as well so that they are easily referenced.   I ask everyone on new-imc to 
> read the references at these links.  People must understand consensus 
> decision making before they can responsibly make a decision about it.
> 
> Reading throught Indymedia's documents concerning consensus the only
>  reference to majority vote I found is under the title "Direct Democracy"
>  (contrasting this and other forms of decision making with consensus) "Even a
>  2/3 majority on a decision would exclude 1/3...".  IMCs using a fall back to
>  2/3, 3/4 or whatever, are not following a consensus decision making model
>  that is consistent with Indymedia documents concerning consensus. 

for the irony.
Imc never consensed on most of these documents anyway :-)
POU & membership criteria are still drafts.


>  Furthermore, falling back to majority rule is not consistent with any of the 
> standard models of consensus decision making. This is majority rule with a 
> patronizing nod toward consensus.  See:
> 
> http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/ConflictResolutionIndymedia's
> 
> I offered earlier the following link to papers on consensus decision making.
> Not all are good, but some are excellent.
> 
> http://www.vernalproject.org/RPapers.shtml#CoopDecMaking
> 
> John's April 25 posting to imc-process lists the following links concerning
> consensus.  He makes insightful comments in his posting as well.
> 
>  http://www.consensus.net/flowchart.html
> and
> http://store.ic.org/products/democracy-in-small-groups.html
> 
> As Indymedia makes a decision about rogue a precident will be set.  We will
> either choose to operate by consensus or devolve into majority rule.  The
> difference between these two paths can be seen by examining the difference
> between the Society of Friends (Quakers, American Friends) and every other
> Protestant denomination in America.  There is a qualitative difference. 

?

> Is Indymedia a social change group?  Didn't we grow out of the Anti-WTO 
> protests in Seattle?  Are we going to loose courage and devolve into majority 
> rule?
> 
> Reading postings to imc-process and new-imc lists I see repeated
> misconceptions and arguments concerning consensus decision making.  Please 
> read the Indymedia documents and other links.  The more the members of 
> Indymedia understand consensus the more workable it will seem.
> 
> There are ligitimate concerns about consensus decisionmaking which we need to
> come to grips with in our local IMCs and at Global.  However, Indymedia does
> not need to devolve into majority rule in order to cope.  There are other
> possible structures, consistent with consensus decision making, which can be
> developed to cope with such things as disruptive individuals on working
> groups, or in an imc.  In an earlier post I gave some of my ideas for doing
> so.  If asked I will repeat them and my explaination that consensus isn't
> about everybody agreeing.  Consensus is about diversity though, and that is
> something that majority rule is not about.  Can we be a diverse organization?
> 
> Starhawk is one of the people referenced in the Indymedia documents.  Perhaps
> she would be willing to work with Indymedia on this issue.
> 
> I'll continue to do my best to further understanding about consensus.
> 
Bart


> 
> _______________________________________________
> New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
> New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/new-imc
> 
> 
> 

-- 

http://wvl.indymedia.org  |     bart at indymedia.org
http://thepits.be         |     bart at thepits.be
http://pseudopunk.be      |     icq: 48682266

gebruik vrije software -- Debian GNU/Linux -- http://debian.org

gpg --keyserver keys.indymedia.org --recv-keys be196251