Consensus: The New Disease

[Guest Zev]

Consensus: The New Disease

 

Well, it’s not really a "new" disease. It is just that I am seeing more and more arguments in favor of this.

 

However, I have also discovered an article written by a Mr. Scott Henson that was truly a breath of fresh air.

 

Mr. Henson's article, entitled "Death To The Facilitators" is a very well thought out discussion that gathers all the excuses consensus offers and one by one tears them apart, exposing their fallacies. In the second half of his article he launches into a vigorous defense of the use of Robert's Rules of Order as being the only viable alternative to serious decision making.

 

See:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1V_M4owXmu8BxbWI37orX0K4XEnKxCwoBtca0tMsozWo/edit?pli=1

 

I commend Mr. Henson's article to your appreciation and urge you to read it. For me it was extremely enjoyable and refreshing in spite of its left-leaning context, for which I am sure he can be forgiven; his thesis, however, does not suffer on this account.

 

Zev

[jstackpo]

Splendid.  Thank you!

 

(Got any more like it?)

[Gary Novosielski]

Outstanding.  I've already forwarded it to a half-dozen people.

[J. J.]

A good article, but consensus can be necessary at some point.

[Edgar Guest]

A good article, but consensus can be necessary at some point.

 

Necessary?

 

An example might be helpful.

[J. J.]

Necessary?

 

An example might be helpful.

 

Sure, forming an permanent organization, would be the most obvious.  Only those members that agree with the bylaws may decide toremain.  A bare majority of the people at the mass meeting may approve of the adopted bylaws and be willing to sign them.

[Gary Novosielski]

Sure, forming an permanent organization, would be the most obvious.  Only those members that agree with the bylaws may decide toremain.  A bare majority of the people at the mass meeting may approve of the adopted bylaws and be willing to sign them.

That's not quite the same as trying to reach consensus among a group of people who all remain in the room.  

 

If everyone who disagrees votes with their feet, you are left with consensus, of a sort, but the entire process of forming a permanent organization is covered quite nicely in RONR, and covered nowhere in any document I've seen that purports to be rules for consensus decisionmaking

[J. J.]

That's not quite the same as trying to reach consensus among a group of people who all remain in the room.  

 

If everyone who disagrees votes with their feet, you are left with consensus, of a sort, but the entire process of forming a permanent organization is covered quite nicely in RONR, and covered nowhere in any document I've seen that purports to be rules for consensus decisionmaking

 

As I said, consesus has its place.  That is an example.  The goal of the mass meeting is, in theory, to form an organization with all like minded people.  A lack of consensus may lead that not happening.

 

Its place, however, is limited.  I would not call it a substitute for standard procedure, but it has its place.