[EM] Consensus decision-making in wikipedia

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 03:03 PM 9/9/2006, Gervase Lam wrote:
>One person questioned whether consensus was like a veto system where
>everybody had to agree with a decision (i.e. the proposer has to make
>compromises on the initial proposal to get everybody to agree)?  If so,
>isn't that what happens already anyway with regards to how bills are put
>through parliaments?
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Consensus_decision-making#Doesn.27t_get_the_point_of_consensus_vs._majority_rule

No, full consensus decision-making is not what happens in 
parliaments, generally, at least not formally. Full consensus process 
requires all members of a group to consent, or at least "stand aside" 
before any decision is made. I have never seen full consensus process 
in large groups, the reason, I think, is obvious. The larger the 
group the larger the possibility of an intransigent member, and, 
further, the greater the time necessary to discover consensus.

I've never heard of a parliament, an actual governmental entity, that 
required full consensus, nor even supermajority, for ordinary decisions.

As to the originator of a motion having veto power over amendments, 
I've seen that in some informal organizations. Generally, it's a bad 
idea. There should be no ownership of motions; notwithstanding that, 
it is common for the presenter of a motion to agree with a proposed 
amendment, and an assembly may accept this, absent objection, to 
facilitate business. Indeed, almost any business can be accomplished 
very quickly where there is consensus, and a good chair will sense 
this and short-circuit the process. The chair simply states that the 
motion will be considered passed "without objection." Anyone objects, 
formal process is necessary. Many organizations conduct business this 
way, including governmental bodies.

The problem with consensus process, if strict, is that it can very 
easily become minority rule, where the status quo favors a minority. 
I've seen a cohousing community, for example, continuing a policy of 
essentially fining members for requesting changes to the construction 
plans for their houses, double the actual cost of changes, when it 
was obviously opposed by a strong majority.

>With regards to how consensus differed from majority voting, one of the
>linked examples mentioned the following consensus voting 'method':
>
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-
>making#Use_of_colored_cards>

Yes, I've seen such use of cards. That article, by the way, is laced 
with POV, that is, with controversial judgements stated as if they 
were facts, contrary to Wikipedia policy. But it's not worth it to me 
to correct it. Instead, I'll let it stand as argument in favor of 
consensus process. The Talk article mentioned above -- Talk articles 
are merely discussion, and they can be full of errors; it is rude to 
correct errors in Talk, but almost obligatory to correct them in the 
article proper -- mentions the color card process as if there were no 
absolute veto, where, in fact, the user of a red card can definitely 
use it as an absolute veto, subject only to override according to the 
consensus bypass rules, if any. The article states that red cards 
would not be used lightly, as if people uniformly obeyed such rules. 
Red means No. Any other requirement put on the use of the red card is 
cultural and subjective.

The card method is really only a quick way of sensing Yes, No, and 
Abstain, by showing colored cards.

>The Consensus decision-making article mentions that Religious Society of
>Friends (commonly known as Quakers) currently use consensus in their
>meetings:
>
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Society_of_Friends#Decision_making_among_Friends>
>
>Aside from the religious in manner of the proceedings, it seems that the
>actual mechanics of it work well.

Generally. Except when it doesn't. Again, I've seen consensus process 
abused by strong personalities.

My own relatively settled position is that the majority has the 
*right* of decision, but will only exercise that right cautiously, if 
it is wise. The majority, essentially, has the right to determine 
what voting margin will implement a decision, but if it uses that to 
make decisions by a narrow edge, barring emergencies, it risks making 
inferior decisions, as well as risking damage to the unity of the organization.

That is, I favor consensus *process*, but it may be short-circuited 
by a majority, perhaps with a declaration of emergency. (the other 
problem, that consensus process can be extremely time-consuming, is 
addressed by the use of proxy representation, either formally or 
informally, i.e., differences between factions are worked out through 
direct discussions outside of a full meeting.)

It is really like what happens in a sane mind. Absent emergency, we 
wisely consider a matter until the various objections we think of are 
settled and we are of one mind. Or we decide that the time is ready 
to make a decision, and it doesn't matter that much which way we go. 
Or we decide that we *must* decide now, conditions do not allow 
delay. We go, perhaps, with our gut feelings, which are a kind of 
sense of an internal majority position based on unconscious processing....

>However, in the section titled "definition of majority", 'Roadrunner'
>makes the interesting point that "...the Politburo Standing Committee of
>the Chinese communist Party appears to make decisions via consensus, but
>this doesn't make the decision making democratic."

Depends. Formally, that's democratic, unless the consensus is 
coerced. If a member is expelled -- or worse --merely for disagreeing 
with a position of the leadership, it is undemocratic. The *process* 
is a democratic one, if the committee actually seeks a true consensus 
of the members. That is, it is democratic with respect to the 
recognized members of the decision-making body.