[statecom-discuss] Separate thread for discussion on consensus

[Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com]

Ron - I agree about separating this thread - in fact i already tried twice, 
lets see if people follow it when you do it.

anyway, rather than waste the group's time I had asked Mike to look up the 
GRP bylaws before suggesting we change them - but he chose not to.   so I have 
looked it up and Mike's "change" is what our bylaws already change - so we can 
just dump that part of the proposal.

I guess I'd like proposers to at least go through the bother of checking our 
bylaws before proposing a change which is what our bylaws presently say.   It 
would save all of us time and seems respectful.

So not only is it similar (as you stated in your email) but in fact that is 
our agreed upon process.   so this issue is closed.

I do want to re-iterate since, Ron, you too, seem to have missed what I wrote 
in response- straw polling and the issues others have raised have to go with 
faciliation NOT our decision-making process.

In your specific example - of course facilitators decide when to drop to a 
vote - it is in the bylaws but it is also always the role of facilitators.

Can we please now agree to a training on facilitation and consensus since we 
don't have disagreement with our stated rules we just don't seem to be able to 
follow them? - Love, grace
In a message dated 6/3/07 12:15:39 PM, ronwf777 at yahoo.com writes:


> A quick note is that consensus will tend to be less laborious for those 
> groups that have well-shared principles or well-determined objectives such as 
> single issue coalitions. 
> 
> For more nebulous and multi-faceted groups such as GRP, then consensus will 
> be more laborious.
> 
> Nevertheless I don't think that Mike's proposal is that far from our current 
> consensus process so I'm not sure that there is any serious disagreement 
> here (as I think Lloyd is basically realizing when he talks of a compromise...)
> 
> Here is Mike's proposal       "4. The consensus process will be changed:
>   An attempt will be made to reach consensus. After a reasonable time, the
>   facilitators of the meeting are authorized to shift to other ways of 
> making decisions (straw votes, etc.) When votes are taken, a 2/3 vote or greater 
> will be needed to make a decision." 
> 
> 1) As it works right now we try to "reach consensus" by stating concerns,
> so that aspect would be the same.
> 2) Proposers try to meet concerns by making changes, so that aspect would be 
> the same.
> 3) Facilitators are allowed to take straw non-decision-making votes whenever 
> they want to, so that aspect would be the same
> 4) Irreconcilable concerns are often put into a small group, outside of the 
> main group to try to resolve them, while the full group continues with other 
> matters.  If this falls under "attempt to reach consensus" then that aspect 
> would be the same.
> The only difference is that Mike's proposal allows the facilitators to move 
> us, at their sole discretion, to a 2/3 vote if they choose to do so bypassing 
> any extending attempts to reach consensus (lengthy repetitive debates for 
> example)
> 
> It seems to me that if we are going to debate this topic then we should 
> sharpen the debate and deal with the following question:
> 
> Do the facilitators have the power to decide when a reasonable "attempt to 
> reach consensus" has been made and unilaterally move us to a 2/3 vote ?
> 
> I would like to hear comments on that.
> 
> Ron
> 
> 
> 
> Ron Francis <ronwf777 at yahoo.com> wrote: I am proposing a separate thread for 
> the discussion of consensus so that it does not get mixed up with other 
> discussion....
> 
> If you agree then please use this subject line for future comments.
> 
> Ron
> _______________________________________________
> statecom-discuss mailing list
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> statecom-discuss mailing list
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> 
> 




**************************************
 See what's free at http://www.aol.com.