 |
Main /
Consensus[This page needs work!] Definition and Theory of Consensus [What the page originally said:] Consensus is the time-consuming process of making a decision that serves the needs of the community's most-needy person, at the expense of everyone else's needs. [Perhaps some better suggestions:] The goal of consensus is to come up with a decision which everyone can live with, rather than a decision which is simply a majority preference (and possibly unacceptable to the minority.) Decisions and policies that meet everyone's needs (if not wants, preferences or desires) are ideal consensus outcomes. In the best case, consensus decisions are more likely to be implemented and followed because there is buy-in from the entire community. In contrast, majority vs. minority decisions may require additional enforcement mechanisms to coerce compliance. Consensus also seeks to identify and illuminate what people actually agree on. In a tense and contentious situation, it's nice to be able to agree on something at least. In many cases, the community may already have consensus on many principles and many baseline policies. Why it's sometimes slow Consensus can be time consuming for many reasons. For example:
Zero-sum and Win-lose situations Consensus may not work well for zero-sum games, where certain people win at the expense of others. For example, consider a consensus approach to dividing up money. A vocal group of people could refuse to approve the decision unless they get more than anyone else. Everyone else might consider this an abuse of consensus because it violates the rules of fairness, but the group in question might claim that their needs are not being met, that any other decision is unacceptable, etc.. Working through these problems may take time. Democracy can also lead to poor zero-sum outcomes; for example, a majority may vote to deprive a minority of all its money or resources. This might be considered an optimal outcome in game theory, but it is distasteful to many because it is unfair. Some might say that the Rooming Meeting is such a zero-sum game, with winners (singles, "good" rooms) and losers (quads, "bad" rooms.) To avoid the zero-sum and win-lose problem, consensus decisions should be fair and should, whenever possible, achieve a win-win situation where everyone benefits. Fairness deserves a bit more consideration as well; people who feel they are being treated unfairly or are making all of the concessions in a negotiation are likely to be unhappy with both the process and outcome. Win-win situations in the Rooming Meeting Some examples of the win-win situation in the Rooming Meeting are:
Consensus Mechanics Perhaps you, dear reader, would like to edit this page a bit and add in some material describing the mechanics of consensus, including:
|