Consensus decision making is bad for social justice
Consensus Session
Go around (reasons for showing up) -looking for alternate but still democratic decision making process -looking for decision making processes that give same power to Yes's as No's -people finding consensus works -looking for better outcomes of consensus -looking for tools for less pain -looking for things between theoretical and practical -blurry consensus processes -look transfer experience fron icon design consensus process
Why consensus sucks -default reaction to hearing "we use consensus" is what do you mnean by that
Quilted Consensus Process -statement of problem -having a proposal -asking clarifying questions -having concerns restated -discussion on what would meant those concerns -either go forward or start with new proposal -approval or denial or send to an committee
-Process came from a workshop retreat -visual actions (like raising thumbs) -Their process does not have a consensus of when a block should happen -different meaning of stand asides, abstain
Additions to Process
--time period for proposals before they get brought up
--the archipegal of the many islands of modified consensus
--group has a one block per x years per person
--frustrations with altered proposals as opposed to friendly amendments
--question on how developed a proposal should be before coming up in decision making process
--answer, implementation is a big missing piece. the approval is just the basic part of the process
--how is the decision made to go to the formal process --many times it only comes to the formal process in "bad" situations --friendly amendment
--how you view whose proposal it is, does a proposal become the group's proposal when given?
--adhoc groups don't really use formal process, but its used to address concerns
Framing issues with Consensus, especially in regard to oppression
--consenses was formalized in WTO protests in Seattle in 1999
--major unrepresentation of less privileged of folks in decision making process
--consense tends to break down in situations where a group is more diverse
--consensus was not created in diverse bodies
--when consensus breaks down, it breaks down worse
--can create coercision and manipulation
--proposals can lead to too many proposals, instead of real colloborative work to solve 1 problem
--non privilige folks get coerced and end up being disengaged
--real consensus doesn't happen because of the disengagement
--consensus can be the tyrany of the whiningest, often the person with the most privilege, creates a big diversive situation
--can often amplify power dynamic problems in a group
--voting gives transparancy
--people can block just to exercise power, sometimes because they feel disengaged in general and want to feel strength
--friendly amendments can water down proposals
-recognizing crypto hierarchy, sometimes process can be used to strenghten that hidden hierarchy
-voting can make dissent more visible -consensus was very attractive, seemed overpowering, seemed that process checks power, process helps engagement, but doesn't do it all
--facilitators can do much more --not that scrapping process is the way to go, but acknowledge that it is not enough
-sometimes forceful proposals can have extra power -for consensus the importance about having the block be a really rare tool to be used -acknowleges that consensus can bring in power dynamnics, but facilitator awareness can prevent disengagment -good facilitation can be aware that not everyone engages the same, speaking, writing, time to think things through -consensus can break down when you take things like class, i.e. people of certain class cannot engage in the same way (jobs, kids, ...)
No Process
-strive for everyone agreeing, but all available tools should be used based on need
-unanimous decsions rather than consensus
-strong individual identities can lead to tough decision making without strong group identity
-looking at consensus as more a tool, rather than the full solution
-chart of consensus shows history of battles, rather than a simple methodology to come to agreement
-trust issues play a important factor
-difficult in coming with strategies in distributed networks
Tools
-facilitation works best with community agreement
--let the community come up with their own rules --one diva one mic --no one knows everything, together we know alot --keep it simple --what said stays here, whats learned here goes out --recognize we speak from our own experiences --move up move up, similar to step up step back, term changes acknolwedge those that can't step --be aware of time --listen with love --assume best intentions --we can't all be articulate all the time
-rules are important
--when things go awry, community agreements can be held up as why things are going wrong in a less personal way --helps facilitator do their job as they can pull back to the document --meeting place is not a place for personal call outs, just using agreements to productively move forward
-Expected actions for agenda items, unfortunately the default goes to decide way too early
--discuss --feedback --questions --share --brainstorm --listen --decide