Re: Consensus, Majority Vote, "Blocks"
From: Moz (
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 15:33:50 -0700 (PDT)
Sharon says:
> But what is the point of making decisions? I think it is to make
> the best decision possible.

That's my hope when I'm making decisions.

> On 5 Oct 2011, at 4:46 PM, R.N. Johnson wrote:
>> would have been "cleaner" from a consensus point of view, to adopt a
>> lifetime cap on blocks.
> If improvement is the purpose of the decision, then random limits on
> vetoes means once a person has used up their vetoes, they can no longer
> insist that a better solution could be found.

To me it reads more like "they use up their ability to block, then move out".

> I think all the qualifiers and limits on consensus decision-making
> distract from the purpose of consensus in the first place.

Why would someone stay in a community if they were singled out as
someone who was forced to accept the will of the majority? Isn't that
one of the things consensus is supposed to be a response to?

I know I spent a long time with the coho group I was in here saying
in a variety of ways "I will not vote, I think coercing our members
is wrong". And in the early stages, wrong in the basic factual "we
do not have the ability to do this" sense, as well as the "morally
wrong" sense.


Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.