[candidate-development] Fw: Re: [Platform] appropriate and inappropriate uses of the consensus process

[gary hicks]

--- On Wed, 6/25/08, gary hicks <watermelongreen2003 at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: gary hicks <watermelongreen2003 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Platform] appropriate and inappropriate uses of the consensus process
To: statecom at green-rainbow.org, platform at green-rainbow.org, candidate-development at green-rainbow.org, "Larry Ely" <tetrahedrons at crocker.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 25, 2008, 1:02 PM

the wikipedia excerpts leave out the crucial element central to all of the
weaknesses of consensus. that is: the users of consensus do not trust each
other. 
 
this is because we come from a society that encourages us not to trust each
other. this would be true even if the people involved were one homogeneous
group. but when we add variety along class, gender, race, sexual preference,
and other lines/background, it really gets confusing.
 
we need to undergo an internal process where we unravel the sources of our
distrust, and how they play out in society, and how that in turn is part of the
party-building realities in which we function. and we ned to figure out FAST
 how we do this while we tackle the realities, both ecological and social,
that will wipe us out as a species if we don't get serious about these
matters. [not necessarily all species: i have heard that the cockroaches will
survive, for example].
 
gary hicks
 
gary hicks

--- On Mon, 6/23/08, Larry Ely <tetrahedrons at crocker.com> wrote:

From: Larry Ely <tetrahedrons at crocker.com>
Subject: [Platform] appropriate and inappropriate uses of the consensus process
To: statecom at green-rainbow.org, platform at green-rainbow.org,
candidate-development at green-rainbow.org
Date: Monday, June 23, 2008, 10:06 AM

GRP,

The following points from Wikilpedia about the inappropriate uses of the 
consensus process are worth thinking about given the current makeup of 
StateCom.  I, for one, see a lot of sleepwalking behavior in our group 
dynamics - we say we are this and that, we hold up the 10 KV that describe 
a cohesive band of trusting warriors against the barbarians at the gates, 
but how we really function belies what we say and hold about 
ourselves.  Frankly, using the consensus process given the current state of 
our human material is bound to fail.

Larry


Critics of consensus decision-making often observe that the process, while 
potentially effective for small groups of motivated or trained individuals 
with a sufficiently high degree of 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affinity_%28sociology%29>affinity, has a 
number of possible shortcomings, notably:
    * Preservation of the Status quo: In decision-making bodies that use 
formal consensus, the ability of individuals or small minorities to block 
agreement gives an enormous advantage to anyone who supports the existing 
state of affairs. This can mean that a specific state of affairs can 
continue to exist in an organization long after a majority of members would 
like it to change. 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making#cite_note-17>[18]
    * Susceptibility to disruption: Giving the right to block proposals to 
all group members may result in the group becoming hostage to an inflexible 
minority or individual. Furthermore, "opposing such obstructive behavior 
[can be] construed as an attack on freedom of speech and in turn [harden] 
resolve on the part of the individual to defend his or her 
position."<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making#cite_note-18>[19]

As a result, consensus decision-making has the potential to reward the 
least accommodating group members while punishing the most accommodating.
    * <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox>Abilene paradox: 
Consensus decision-making is susceptible to all forms of 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink>groupthink, the most dramatic 
being the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox>Abilene paradox.
In 
the Abilene paradox, a group can unanimously agree on a course of action 
that no individual member of the group desires because no one individual is 
willing to go against the perceived will of the decision-making 
body.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making#cite_note-19>[20]

On the other hand, consensuses specifically asking for, and wanting to 
hear, unresolved concerns and reservations, tend to diminish this 
effect.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making#cite_note-20>[21]


    * Time Consuming: Since consensus decision-making focuses on discussion 
and seeks the input of all participants, it can be a time-consuming 
process. This is a potential liability in situations where decisions need 
to be made speedily or where it is not possible to canvass the opinions of 
all delegates in a reasonable period of time. Additionally, the time 
commitment required to engage in the consensus decision-making process can 
sometimes act as a barrier to participation for individuals unable or 
unwilling to make the 
commitment.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making#cite_note-21>[22]


="_______________________________________________
Platform mailing list
Platform at green-rainbow.org
http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/platform


      
_______________________________________________
Platform mailing list
Platform at green-rainbow.org
http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/platform