> So,
suppose voting is evil. Then how do we make
decisions? Because with the
> current number of members on this list,
there's
never going to be something
like
consensus.
That's simply not true.
Consensus means everybody agrees, right? I've never
seen that so far on the list, but I may have
missed it.
Ah no. Consensus is not when everybody is *happy*. A
decision is taken only when everybody agree for the
decision to be taken, which is very slightly
different.
The acceptance of each member of the group is
necessary. In the end, it is not only that the
decision is build in a cooperative way, it is also
that everybody is more satisfied, because each had the
occasion to give his own advice, to provide input, to
feel he is important in the process, to feel he is not
left behind, unlistened.
There is a right for everybody to say "no, this is
absolutely NOT acceptable to my point of view", and
this must be accepted by the others (right of veto ?).
This must stop the decision to be taken, and *require*
that further discussion occur.
Sometimes, the veto is asked because one believe the
decision to be *wrong*, sometimes it is because one
believe a better option could be found through more
discussion, and ask for more time.
But, except for the absolute veto, it is still
possible *at the end* for somebody to say "well, I am
not happy with that decision because
- I think it is an error
- I think that is useless
-...
but, I won't prevent that decision to be taken".
This is just stating we are not really *happy* with
the final decision, but that it's ok nevertheless.
Things can go on.
Or we can drop the discussion, and go do something
else for some time.
And the decision is taken with more satisfaction for
all than through a classical voting system...
Anthere
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/