i see the role of an elected leadership as a
supplement to the
consensus process not a replacement. Basically they should usually be
there to advise us but when deadlocks happen they would have the
authority to decide whether or not a minority arguement is strong
enough to block consensus - in any event a majority is always going to
be the minimum to go forward with any change and a minority will still
be able to block a short sighted change - at least long enough that
they can be heard out and usually much longer. The difference is that
the minority would no longer have what amounts to a guaranteed veto
over any change - they would have to convince the community and/or the
council why sometimig should be blocked. That gives a small minority
the voice needed to steer us away from huge mistakes and to amend
proposals through discussion and compromise but the days of a small
cabal being able to hold the status quo without reasoned argument
would be over. Consensus still wins.
Yes, blocking, by an small group, or even an individual (in other
contexts) is fine IF they have a good argument, especially if it is
obvious others in the discussion don't understand that argument yet. It
should not result in sterile deadlocks though.
I continue to support that kind of council as a promising idea.
Fred