Building consensus online
From:
Tom Kaneko
Date:
Apr 01 12:27 UTC
Short link
Michael Allan wrote:
> Your process seems to depend on *quantity* of agreement. It allows
> one proposal (P) to be rejected and replaced by a very different one
> (Q) soley on the basis of which has the *most* agreement. So my
> original questions still apply: How does the process formalize each
> proposal, and the agreement to each?
Yes, I should have addressed this question directly. I will now be
describing the consensus process I envision working on the internet,
and steer away from the 'Formal Consensus' process used in real life
meetings. The truth is that my model does not formalise any proposal
at all. In fact this process is never ending, and goes through
endless cycles of refinement. This may mean that the focus proposal
could ping pong between P and Q until someone comes up with a creative
solution, or the objectors agree to disagree. This also allows for
the proposals to evolve as circumstances in the real world change.
Users will never be faced with a page saying "this issue is closed".
Further, the level of agreement is not formalised either, but only the
level of disagreement, because only objections are noted along with
the proposal, not the level of agreement. I concede that in many
cases, even good proposals will have several objections, but I find
this desirable because it dissolves the myth of absolute rights/
authority of decisions.
And how can people act on unformalised decisions, you ask? They can,
and they do, I have seen it happen effectively. I would look into the
weird 'war' of Scientology vs Anonymous. Anonymous is a bizarre
anarchic organisation in which the 9000 or so self-declared members do
not know each other's identity, are decentralised, have no hierarchy,
but make decisions and act on them promptly and responsibly. It is an
interesting case for the consensus process I am developing, and indeed
one from which I derive my rosy assumptions about the potential for
responsibility and morality on the internet.
Michael:
> Yes, I see your intent. But what causes them to focus on Q, and to
> reject P? What does Q have, that P lacks? If only 2 participants had
> agreed to Q, for example, would it still become the new focus?
Q will become the new focus even if only 2 participants agree, just
because it has been suggested, but the level of disagreement for Q
will soon result in the proposal being reverted back to a proposal
that resembles P. All versions of proposals will be archived, and be
ready to call up if and when they are desired.
The intention is to get as many people as possible to read through the
proposals, and amend them as they see fit, which through leaps and
bounds should lead to the most agreeable position. The only evidence
which alludes to the support of the proposals are the number of page
views and the number of edits.
Of course, throughout this process, discussion would be essential in
resolving disagreements, but will not be used as a tool to gather
support and agreement.
Throughout this process I have focused on the disagreement side of
decision making, because I see the consensus process as one that
resolves disagreement and conflict, as opposed to one that endorses a
popular proposal. Agreement is assumed in the absence of disagreement.
The reason why I have steered away from formalising proposals, is
because i want the process to resemble the consensus processes that we
use in everyday life. The pattern tends to be proposal ("let's do
this!") - disagreement ("No, because...") - amended proposal ("so how
about we...") - disagreement ("yes, but...") or agreement ("ok"). I
think users will find this approach more familiar and natural.
I think the best way to understand this process is to see it. I'll
try to get a draft model of this process online by the end of this
month, at which point I will let you all know.
Kind regards,
Tom Kaneko