Agreement Or Consensus

Critics of the blocking of consensus often find that while the option is potentially effective for small groups of motivated or trained people with a sufficiently high degree of affinity, it has a number of possible shortcomings, particularly within the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), but decisions are made in a broad consensus. [67] The IETF has firmly refrained from defining a mechanical method of verifying such a consensus, apparently believing that such codification leads to attempts to “play the system”. Instead, a working group or BoF chair must express the “sense of the group.” These differences do not mean that people with more power are “bad.” However, in order to use consensus effectively, we need to address this power dynamic. Since the consensus decision focuses on the debate and seeks input from all parties involved, it can be a time-taking process. This is a potential liability in situations where decisions must be made quickly or where it is not possible to obtain the advice of all delegates within a reasonable time. In addition, the time required to participate in the consensus decision-making process can sometimes be a barrier to the participation of people who are unable or unable to make the commitment. [50] However, once a decision has been made, it can be implemented more quickly than a decision made. American businessmen complained that they had to discuss the idea with everyone, even the janitor, during negotiations with a Japanese company, but as soon as a decision was made, the Americans discovered that the Japanese could act much faster because everyone was on board, while the Americans were in the grip of internal opposition. [51] After consideration of the issue, it remains free to reach agreement on what needs to be done. Business meetings of the Religious Society of Friends (Quaker) use a process close to consensus to integrate each other`s ideas and achieve a better approach to truth.

It is often argued that consensus works well in small groups, but as groups become larger and more diverse, it is simply impossible to find solutions that work for everyone. It is true that it becomes much more difficult to reach consensus when there are more people and more perspectives. However, consensus can be used successfully by broader groups, the chapter on consensus in large case study groups and how to do so. For this system to work well, it is useful for the whole group to adopt general guidelines or agreements, which are then implemented in detail by an individual or working group. For example, the entire group might decide which commercials to publish, but only the advertising group is involved in writing messages on social media. The SpokesCouncil process continues the small group model by replacing the need for all to meet with a system of delegate meetings. It is an effective way to enable all members of a large group to actively participate and provides a practical format for consensual decisions with hundreds of participants. It is used by many groups such as social centres, labour coalitions, peace and environmental movements (see example of the box). Compare the values of consensus to those that dominate the world in which we live. The Western system of representative voting presents itself as the highest form of democracy. But it is precisely in the nations that shout the loudest about the virtues of democracy that many people no longer even bother to vote; Whoever they choose, decisions are made by an elite of powerful politicians and businessmen whose interests are totally different from those they are supposed to represent.