Anthere wrote:
- I suggested to restart the discussion and individual propositions all
over again. I do not think a majority vote has any value on an article page to the point a strong veto given by one of the main author may be just neglected. I don't think a couple of people repeating ad nauseam that this is the most approved version so the "right" one, while the vetoer reverts it on sight, is the right path for consensus decision making. Veto is something recognised in consensus.
Without commenting on the DNA dispute, I want to address the implications of consensus in this statement. In my opinion, neither majority voting nor a veto system belong in consensus decision-making. This is not to criticize Anthere, whom I know to be committed to promoting consensus, only to take issue with the way it is expressed here.
My personal understanding of consensus is that it falls somewhere between a majority and unanimity. Certainly 50% plus one vote is not a consensus, and Anthere points out that when there's strong minority opposition, a simple majority vote has no value for us. But allowing vetoes is no good either, or we'll be held hostage by the Plautuses (or Plauti?) of the world.
To my mind, consensus means a decision that is supported by a large portion of the group, and takes into account any objections. It does not mean that people with objections have to support the decision. However, by addressing the objections within the consensus, at some point the group is entitled to expect people with objections to acquiesce in the group's decision. This means the proportion of support required for consensus depends partly on the strength of the objections. It also means that a very few people may be so stubborn and recalcitrant that they don't believe a consensus can be reached without including them, or fail to recognize when this happens. At some point, we have to kindly but firmly tell such people that this is not the project for them.
--Michael Snow