[governance] Process issues for future consensus calls

[Paul Lehto]

My "Political Dictionary" defines "consensus" as "agreement
approaching unanimity, usually without a vote."

But not always without a vote, since there must be some way to assess
the consensus, especially at the frontier of 'rough consensus' the
existence of which allows coordinators to draft (or rather re-draft) a
statement representing the rough consensus.

To the extent a redrafted statement incorporates (without future
objection) the concerns of the minority, it might then qualify for
full consensus, depending.

Where differences are fundamental and/or are not incorporated into the
statement of rough consensus (or where there is no tweaking of the
text attempted) the existing text would then have the tag of "approved
by rough consensus" or the like.

If one wished to avoid voting per se, one procedure that seems sound
to me is for an "integrator" (whether it be a co-ordinator or their
delegate, or a subcommittee member that's agreed upon) to review all
available posts, asking for clarification where needed, then drafting
up a statement that they believe is acceptable to all or very nearly
all (definition of consensus) and then circulating that statement to
the list to hear any feedback, especially those objections that would
be in the nature of "fails to capture the full group in the following
way..." or "substantially misrepresents an idea of the group or its
members" or drafting typos or errors.  Upon the requisite comment
period of 48 hours or as otherwise applicable, a good faith redraft is
done.

The Integrator or referee so to speak in the above process would
ideally have the skills of a elgal drafter to some extent, a grasp of
technical basics with ability to learn, and a high commitment to
active listening with a view toward the integration of the wisdom of
the group as a whole.  It is both very limiting (in the
listening/input aspect) and quite creative (in the imagination of the
integration that might make various voices consistent, to the full
extent possible).

Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor
On 1/31/10, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> All,
>
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
>> Bill Drake (and McTim) earlier questioned my handling of the
>> just-concluded
>> drafting exercise and consensus call
>
> Just to clarify, it was the closing of the statement and the
> re-opening it (after a reiteration that it was closed) that I objected
> to, not the drafting exercise itself.
>
> , and Bill and I continued that
>> discussion off-list.  He suggested I bring it back on list, so I am going
>> to
>> summarise the underlying issues between us here (rather than, as in our
>> off-list discussion, going through why I did or didn't include
>> such-and-such
>> a comment in mind-numbing detail).
>> As coordinator of this caucus, as in other groups I have led, I will seek
>> to
>> draft text using a modified "lazy consensus" approach that incorporates
>> these steps:
>> * Has text suggested on the list drawn, or could it realistically draw,
>> any
>> support other than from its proponent?  (This is not an onerous test to
>> pass.)
>> * If so, does it contradict the views of a significant number
>> of other members that remain strongly held despite an adequate period of
>> discussion, such that it is unlikely that a rough consensus could emerge?
>> * If so, suggest compromise text that could satisfy both camps where
>> possible.
>> * If this is not possible or neither camp is satisfied with the
>> compromise,
>> omit text on this issue from the statement altogether.
>> * Otherwise, include the text.
>> * My standard for including changes becomes more stringent when the last
>> text prior to consensus call is posted, and still more so during the
>> consensus call (when it is basically limited to correcting errors).
>
> That was not my perception of what happened this time.
>
> The charter does not specify how text is drafted or edited.  However,
> given how messy the process was this time, i would not wish to use
> this method going forward.
>
> In any case, it seems that most folk prefer the statement as amended
> to include Thematic WGs.  I have no problem with us issuing such a
> statement, as it does seem to reflect the majority of opinion of
> Caucus Members.
>
> However, I do have a problem with the conflation of voting and finding
> consensus.  IIRC, we vote ONLY when electing coordinators.
>
> Let's keep the word "voting/vote" ONLY for elections, IMO we do NOT
> vote on statements.  We indicate support for statements (or lack
> thereof).  While the difference is subtle it is important for some of
> us, and is one of the reasons we approved the charter as is.
>
> Let's NOT do "Preliminary results of" anything, as it only serves to
> muddy the waters.
>
> Charter says:
> "In cases where the IGC cannot reach full consensus, the two
> coordinators together can make a decision on rough consensus subject
> to an appeal as described below."
>
> In this case, it seems clear there is a consensus of those who have
> voiced an opinion.  Two coordinators calling rough consensus are
> needed only when there is no clear consensus.
>
>
>> Bill differs from me on this process.  He will correct me if I
>> mischaracterise his views, but I understand he prefers that all
>> suggestions
>> for changes (even contradictory ones) should be included in the text in
>> brackets, and not removed until a specific (non-lazy) consensus emerges.
>>  Moreover if substantive changes are called for even after a consensus
>> call,
>> and there is sufficient time to re-open for discussion, the call should be
>> rescinded.
>> It may be possible for technology to come to our aid here, in that we
>> could
>> experiment with collectively drafting documents online without the need
>> for
>> confusing exchanges of emails with many bracketed sections, as Bill's
>> approach would (in my view) have required in this case.
>
> As long as we use the website specified in the charter.
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box #1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t