The Cunctator wrote:
Jeronimo wrote:
>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" doesn't mean the same as "unanimous consent".
If everybody on the list agrees except for TC, then that is consensus.
(I don't want to get into a discussion of whether this has ever happened,
but it certainly could.)
There's even room for voting in some consensus decision making processes:
We discuss the idea for a while, making up new ideas and hashing out old ones.
Eventually, it becomes clear what most people think the right idea is.
Then somebody announces <OK, this is the consensus, so I'll do it.>.
At that point, anybody who thinks <Hold on! that is *not* the consensus!>
is the person that should call a vote in order to prove that
no such consensus exists -- not to *make* a decision but to *stop* one.
Voting for survey purposes is a fine idea as well,
as when elian didn't want to keep working on something with no hope,
as long as we don't intend to let a 51% majority "win" the vote.
In this case, it seems (without counting, this is just an impression)
that the portal has received a majority vote, but it's pretty close.
Conclusion: elian can work on a portal without wasting his time,
but nobody could possibly claim that any consensus has been reached,
hence no decision yet (which is good, since new ideas are still coming).
>The discussion will die without any solution or
will
>continue endlessly.
I don't think that's ever been the case.
I do think that this has definitely been the case in some situations.
But I would also argue that that's exactly what should happen
in most such situations. Votes that are used to make decisions
should be reserved only for times when a decision *must* be made now.
-- Toby