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

[dragon]

What I would point out, Portland had a 3/4 majority fallback for almost 2
years which was only recently changed. 

People who we spoke with who have been dedicated to consensus (forest
activists and other collective members of local organizations) felt that
Portland was not consensus because of the 3/4 fallback and that it only paid
lip service to it.

Listening to the views of these people that we respect, and seeing the 3/4
majority be abused, Portland revisioned itself and now uses a full consensus
model. (Ironically, we pushed through the new full consensus structure via
the existing 3/4 majority rule)

(portland about us page - http://portland.indymedia.org/about.php3 - url
soon to change with the new site launch to -
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/static/about.shtml )

I have not checked, but I hear other imc's have a 3/4 or 2/3 majority
fallback. Since the IMC Network is not itself having a consensus opposing a
3/4 or 2/3 majority, and the precedent is there for existing IMC's to have
super-majority fallback, it seems inappropriate to have a new IMC be blocked
on that basis. If people feel that consensus without fallback is the best
way to go, then it may be more appropriate to work towards a global
consensus on the point, rather than hold a single new IMC captive as a
battleground for this idea.

Portland obviously chose to do away with the supermajority fallback, but
Portland also respects the right of a local IMC to explore this idea and
come to their own conclusions. The fact that we started with supermajority
fallback and ended up with consensus without fallback shows that by allowing
flexibility and room for experimentation that an inevitable decline away
from visionary principles is not inevitable. 

regards
deva




Quoting freedom <freedom at riseup.net>:

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