[New-imc] different definitions of consensus?

[Jay]

Hi,

I just received a couple messages which indicate that people in the network 
are talking in their local IMCs about the need to better define the 
Indymedia network's definition of consensus.  That's really great.

I want to make sure that people remember, in all this, that no one is 
suggesting that the Indymedia network change its view on consensus 
organizing, but that we develop a clearer definition of what that means to 
us.

There are a couple questions here.  One obviously is whether having a 2/3 
majority fall back position, or any other kind of anti-obstructionist 
mechanism (consensus minus one, or two, or any variant), means that a group 
has stopped using consensus, or that they're using a diffent form of 
consensus than formal consensus.  Does such an animal exist? :)

Another question is how strict the Indymedia network wants to be in 
deciding, for local IMC groups, how they define consensus.  Obviously, if 
we decide that Indymedia's definition of consensus equals formal consensus, 
that's what we'll have to insist on having new-imcs do.  However, if we 
agree that there are many variants of effective consensus-based organizing 
I don't think we should be the ones to determine what particular 
manifestation an IMC uses.  So, that's what we have to determine.

I may have already stated my own opinion in other e-mails.  I have a been 
involved in a number of organizations, some that used formal conensus, 
others that have a 2/3 vote or other fallback position "on the 
books."  Thinking about it, I've never been in a group that has actually 
used the fallback, because every time a block happens, the group goes 
through all kinds of gymnastics to make sure a vote doesn't have to be 
employed -- generally involving developing a better proposal that results 
in real consensus.  This kind of decision-making environment is quite 
different than any non-consensus majority rule or 2/3 majority vote 
organizations that exist, which don't even try to reach consensus at all, 
and because of that, generally don't find real value in a minority opinion 
if it won't be enough to turn the vote.  I don't think a group that only 
uses majority rules voting could ever be "an IMC," as I see "an IMC."  But, 
in my experience, a group that uses consensus decision-making and a has 
fallback option, whatever the group decides is most appropriate, should 
have quite a different tenor.

That has just been my experience.  I know others experiences may differ.

Jay