[New-imc] different definitions of consensus?

[Mike R]

Hi Jay,


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

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

I have seen in the Green Party of the United States at last year's
convention, very quick fallbacks to 2/3 vote when a block was
established that would not be put aside.  Based on how upset people
were at that, and my other experience with consensus groups with a 2/3
fallback, that making every effort to reach consensus has been the
path to go with the vote only in extreme circumstances.

I also agree that Rogue should not be held up over external debate
over which consensus method to use unless all IMCs used one method.


-- 
Mike
mailto:micro.zen at verizon.net