User:Douginamug/Notes:Consensus decision-making

Blah
With a description of the history ahead for context, we run into the tricky topic of describing what It is (now.) There is clearly a practical element, and also an ethical element (and perhaps more.) Writing about the practical and ethical separately seems wise. I think it makes sense to have ethics first. There is no perfect way to right this, and that's OK.

Ethics
David Graeber, writing during Occupy Wall Street, went as far as saying "Consensus is not a set of rules. It's a set of principles."

Practice
There is no official consensus decision-making practice due to its decentralized, grassroots origins. However, the numerous, independent guides and manuals that have been published since the 1970s share broadly overlapping suggestions. Groups adopt consensus at various levels of formality: from completely informal, to a written internal process or even by specifying it in the articles of their legal entity.

Consensus centers around collaborative discussion between equals: a type of egalitarian dialogue or deliberation. The classical situation is an in-person meeting, but any medium which allows free-form communication can be used, such as online meetings, forums, wikis, mailing lists or for-purpose platforms.

Through discussion, the group aims to find a proposal which address the issue at hand and satisfies the group's consensus criteria. This involves not only creating and amending proposals to fit the opinions of the group, but also changing the opinions of the group to understand and accept proposals. Groups may follow a conceptual framework to productively guide the discussion towards consensus proposals, commonly featuring an initial phase were ideas are creatively brainstormed, a middle phase where the relative merits of the different ideas are discussed, and a final phase where a single proposal is attempted to be formed.

Roles and methods. . . (there's a billion important adjacents... keep practice to core?)

Proposals are tested and finalized for consensus by participants clearly stating their opinion. This may be called for by the facilitator, or by a participant. There are typically (at least) three ways to respond:


 * Agree: the participant consents to the proposal and positively supports it. (Also called: support,)
 * Stand aside: the participant consents to the proposal, but does not positively support it. (Also called: abstain, accept, consent, agree with reservations)
 * Block: the participant does not consent to the proposal. (Also called: veto, oppose)

Criteria for consensus is usually defined as full consent of all participants (e.g. only 'agree' and 'stand aside'; no 'blocks') Some claim that decision rules other than full consent still qualify the entire practice as consensus. Consent here means acceptance, not necessarily satisfaction, although most groups desire to reach proposals that all participants positively support. As such, block functions as a veto, postponing the decision and returning the group to discussion, although the block is only sometimes thought of as a right to veto. Requirements and/or restrictions on who or why a block may be expressed:


 * opposition must be strong enough that member would leave group if it went ahead
 * ground for blocking must justified on group principles
 * blocker must actively work out alternative and present at next meeting

Groups may also define a 'fall back' situation where if a consensus can't be reached, a decision can be made via another method.


 * if consensus not reached after time limit
 * if consensus not reached after meeting limit

Once the fallback criteria has been fulfilled,


 * -1, -2, -n
 * super majority
 * simple majority

Organizations that use consensus:

 * Radical Routes no vote + block + (majority?) fallback if proposal reaches third gathering
 * Wikipedia no vote + no block + no fallback
 * IETF no vote + no block + no fallback
 * SNCC no vote + block?

Consensus-oriented:

 * Modified Borda Count (described as 'near consensus alternative' by Crowdwise, and as 'consensus voting' by Emerson )
 * Score voting (as part of Systemic Konsensing, more generally argued as 'utilitarian winner', or 'least bayesian regret')
 * Quadratic voting (as MBC, for where voters might Bullet vote in score voting)