[Noisebridge-discuss] Consensus and the "old ways".

[Al Billings]

On Oct 2, 2009, at 10:14 AM, jim wrote:

> JS: i did not have the "nazi" card in mind. GWB's election
> seems a good example of bad results of majority rules. it's
> prominent and recent and common to us all. any group running
> by majority rules can come to a decision that is harmful to
> a minority of its members.

Well, except that he didn't actually win the majority vote in his  
first election (as I recall) but won due to the way the system worked  
out the problem, including the supreme court. I found it to be a straw  
man in any case.

>>>  seems best to avoid any decision-making on the part
>>> of the entire group as much as possible. let sub-groups
>>> do their things.
>>
>>  Which happens in consensus but not in voting how?
> JS: it seems to me that the consensus process elevates the
> prospect of discussion a little more prominently than does
> the voting process. if not, then it's a wash.

  It is more that the consensus process REQUIRES a certain amount of  
conversation that could be sidestepped by a simple vote at times.  
Something that I would consider a feature. That isn't to say all  
conversation is avoided (and it shouldn't be) but that the entire  
decision making process is not simply turned into an attrition based  
exercise in talking something to death. In a parliamentary voting  
system, one can always "call for the question" and force a vote (and  
end discussion), just as people can always "move to table" to postpone  
a decision to the next meeting.

>> Well, I know the third, which is that people, verbally in
>> conversation, threaten to block x or y all the time, which keeps
>> people from ever taking certain ideas further. I see it in IRC
>> constantly.
> JS: on-line behavior is certainly different from in-person
> behavior, at least to some degree a lot of the time. that
> the threat of a block discourages someone from presenting
> a proposal reflects at least as much on the strength of
> the person and/or the proposal that they'd like to present.

Or the fact that people aren't going to bring something up when they  
know a single person can veto any decision in NB and someone has just  
said that they will do so.

> seems like this dynamic works in the voting process too.

Well, except that one person doesn't get to veto any and all decisions  
by blocking.

Al