Some food for thought on how decisions are made in The Shire of Cynnabar.
(THis article is reprinted from the Feb. Citadel.)

13 responses total.

A Discourse on Consensus

Sal Sanfratello Jr.

Since my arrival here seventeen months ago, I have observed a number of
things that Cynnabar identifies with. By this I mean that the group
chooses to define some things as essential to its character. This is not
uncommon. I have been involved with groups that have seen themselves as
a community of dilettantes, or of caretakers of tradition, or even one
place that refers to itself as the Fighters' Finishing School of the
Midrealm (not unreasonably, given the number of knights hailing from
there). One way Cynnabar chooses to think of itself is in terms of the
way it makes decisions. 

I think the reason for this self regard has origins in the amount of
time spent on decisions here. Given the amount of time and talk devoted
to consensus, though, I have found many peoples' idea of consensus is
only vaguely defined. The origins of consensus in Cynnabar date to a
discourse some years ago with the kingdom senechal. There remain in
Cynnabar a few who were present at those meetings, but many members now
present were not. I have spoken to eight other people on the topic of
consensus in preparation for writing this article, and they all
addressed a few topics that defined their opinions. They are:

What is consensus?

How does it work in an ideal world?

How does it work differently in Cynnabar?

What is the role of trust in consensus?

What purpose would a moderator serve in consensus?

What is an apparent majority, and who determines it?

Which takes precedence, the decision of the individual or the group?

What is the responsibility of the citizen and the group in consensus?

I will not try to outline peoples' image of consensus here because
opinions on some of these topics often seem mutually exclusive. Instead,
I will offer my own ideal of Cynnabar consensus. I hope I will not be
the only one to do so. I will address each of the above issues, as did
those I interviewed. I will also include commentary where others offered
me compelling contrary opinions.

Consensus is a method of decision making that revolves around five key
points. Consensus is not possible without 1) open communication, 2) a
willingness to receive communication 3) a willingness to trust others'
good judgment, 4) an active avoidance of micromanagement, and 5)
recognition of consensus as a route of decision making. 

Without communication and its receipt, no mutual understanding can be
achieved. Without the trust of others not to embarrass the group, no one
will consent to anyone doing anything. With micromanagement, trust
erodes and a habit of interference is created. Participants in consensus
must not interfere with activities that don't concern them unless they
find the activities offensive. Otherwise, live and let live.
Micromanagement also makes consensus unwieldy. Finally, it must be
conceded and remembered that the objective is communication for decision
making. The goal of making a decision must be kept in sight.

So, consensus is how a group of people allow each other to act in a
group where each may express their opinion on a topic, which the group
will consider before making a decision. This is crucial, in my view. The
individual's opinion is considered, and then the group makes a decision.
Remember that the goal is to reach a decision through the medium of
communication.

Consensus is enacted in a number of stages. It begins when an action is
forwarded for decision. The sponsor should offer the group an outline of
the proposed action, and its costs and benefits to the group. The
sponsor may then choose to entertain questions. The sponsor should be
trusted to offer an accurate accounting of the action. This does not
mean a complete accounting. The point is to illustrate significance to
the group, not have the plan of action critiqued. To do so is in most
cases micromanagement. The group can then discuss the action and balance
its costs and benefits.

In my model there is a moderator whose responsibilities include keeping
discussion on course to the goal of decision making. When the moderator
sees that the discussion has coalesced into a number of basic views,
usually two or three, they can offer them in summary so that key
differences can be addressed. If a clear majority has been reached, it
is the duty of the moderator to insure that those with differing
opinions feel that they have been heard. Then the group can be asked for
a decision. The moderator will usually repeat the opinion that the
apparent majority has expressed. If, when that opinion is offered, there
are no strong opinions against, a decision has been reached.

Now, some observations about the process. First, the sponsor must give
the group a full accounting. This means a full accounting of the effects
on the group. This does not mean the bus schedule to get to the site.
These details are the responsibility of those involved in enacting the
action. The moderator must be impartial in their moderation. That is,
they may have an opinion, but must not use their influence over the
discussion to curtail contrary considerations. This is an issue of
trust. The moderator must also take an active part in moderating some
discussions, especially to minimize micromanagement and hard feelings
and to promote communication and decision making. 

In this manner, I see consensus as a viable method of decision making.
If any one of the things I listed as essential is missing, it will not
work, either through bickering or through unwieldy discussion. There are
other methods of decision making which are more efficient or quicker,
like democracy, representative government, oligarchy or monarchy. In a
group this size, consensus is the simplest form naturally occurring.
Most groups in the S.C.A. do it this way without choosing the method,
and most do it without conflict.

In my model of consensus, the trust of the participants make it
unnecessary to reject actions and their sponsors in many cases, because
it is understood that the sponsor would not act against the best
interest of the group and does not wish to interfere with what others
are doing. This allows for quick, smooth decision making. While more
consideration should be offered to unknown sponsors, or unusual
proposals, the majority of the participants in an effectively
functioning group should be able to gain the group's consent with a
minimum of discussion. Thus, trust is the best effector of speedy
decision making. Amongst those I spoke to, most expressed concerns about
trust, and two said it was the most crucial part of good consensus
systems.

One issue of considerable discussion amongst those I spoke with was the
question of what makes an apparent majority. No one wants to exclude a
single person from the group. At the same time, almost everyone agreed
that the point was to achieve a decision, and that it might be necessary
to set aside someone's, or even a few someones', objections in order to
act in the way the apparent majority of the group desires. I believe
that the apparent majority is just that; a subjective measure that is
nonetheless apparent. It looks a lot like three quarters to me most of
the time, but I wouldn't make that a rule. I've just recognized it when
I felt that my side had won, or that there was no way people would agree
to a given proposal. That's just what it felt like. That's how I know it
when it happens.

One of the toughest issues in group management is "which takes
precedent, the individual or the group?" This was also a critical point
in my interviews. Most people suggested that the individual has to
recognize that, as part of the group, they do not always get their way.
A contrary opinion offered was that the group has no rights that the
individual does not allow it, and that the group was required to offer
the maximum amount of consideration to the individuals within it. In my
model, the group takes precedence, while taking due concern for the
individual. The individual is owed the respect and consideration of
their peers, but must recognize that the point of the group's discussion
is to decide. The individual should allow the group to act despite their
concerns. Withholding that consent is selfish, and the group has a
responsibility to the apparent majority to act, without an individual's
consent if necessary. As one person put it, "better more happy people
than one happy person." At the same time, the individual has the
responsibility of his or her convictions to attempt to convince other
individuals to change their minds, to reconsider the decision of the
group. This allows for the group to not seize up at each disagreement,
and it allows for the expression of a person's convictions. Obviously,
the individual(s) dissenting may not be forced to participate.

Thus, both the group and the individuals have responsibilities in this
model. The group is responsible for representing the apparent majority
on each issue. It is not meant to answer every objection, but to strive
to address as many as possible. It is meant to allow opportunities for
individuals to participate not just in discussion but in actions. The
goal of the process is the decision. Thus the group is the servant of
the individuals, not the individual, and the group should offer all of
the individuals within it satisfaction most of the time, rather than
each individual all of the time. The individuals are responsible for
recognizing that they must accommodate one another some of the time, and
they cannot be offended when they have to concede something to others in
the group. In the interest of communication, the individuals have to
take the time to communicate their concerns and listen to the concerns
of others. They are also responsible for not dragging the discussion on
unnecessarily, delaying a decision. The individuals, especially those
who feel most strongly about a topic, must recognize when the discussion
is done, and it is time to act. This will sometimes result in
disappointment, but in an effective consensus model, even those decided
against have had their say. Individuals must guard against
micromanagement, because lengthy and tedious discussions delay action
and frustrate those involved in both sides of the decision. Finally, the
individuals must trust one another to do a good job and to act in the
best interest of the group, unless they have demonstrated that trust
unwarranted.

My model is not simple or easy, but I have seen it work with a minimum
of procedure and effort. I now offer it for your consideration.

Don't think it'll work at all.  

I see you have been to our meetings... :-)

<chuckle>

You would be a good employee otf the "Del Rio" (a local bar that is
collectively run.

whom?  not me, certainly.  I could see Robert Esteves there, maybe, though.
Wonder if you two would get on?

Hmmm... never really though about swinging that way but...
OOPS, I thought you wondered if we would "get it on?"

Yeah, I could fit into any collective, I'm just a natural communist... :-)

RE

wrong conference, osgad...<chuckle>

Here's another tidbit from The Citadel on consensus:

                      A Spectre is Haunting Cynnabar

                            by Douglas Warshow

     One evening, several years ago, I was witness to a
discussion between two of my friends on whether or not "mind"
existed. One chap refused to clarify what he meant by the term
because, he reasoned, such a concept did not exist and,
therefore, could not be defined. The other insisted that a
definition of "mind" was required in order to make any arguments
valid. Both held fast to their respective grounds. The argument
remained in abeyance well past the rising of the sun.
     We may never know the answer to their discussion, but I
learned an important lesson: no progress can be made without the
use of standards. A person may record data to one hundred decimal
places, but this accuracy is for naught without an attached unit
of measurement.
     Thus is the state of consensus in this shire. Many a time
this form of due process has been boasted as one of Cynnabar's
strengths, and yet not one member will or can give a clear
definition of what it is in our group. This has been an issue for
years and it currently shows no sign of being settled in this
epoch.
     The reluctance to resolve our code for consensus puzzles me.
If this is truly a point about which the shire can be proud, why is
there reluctance to discuss it? Why is it not written down as any
other constitutional document would be? Are people scared of
consensus? If people are so embarrassed by this method, then I
can only wonder why it was adopted in the first place or why it
was not abandoned long ago for a more favorable one.
     Setting a standard is imperative for many reasons, the first
and foremost being that people may have some reference to use
when enacting rules. We have already seen myriad times the
problem this causes amongst ourselves (such as the many fights on
how to decide issues), but consider what a new member must think
when they ask about our government and either receive many
different responses or an etherial answer. Would you enter a
foreign country which possessed either an unclear or unpublished
code of laws?
     The above touches on another important reason: hypocrisy.
What else can one think when they see that we cannot reach a
consensus on consensus?
     The next point is unpleasant, but I feel that it must be
mentioned. Any undefined system is malleable and, ergo, subject
to manipulation. I do not suggest that anyone in Cynnabar would
consciously make use of this fact, but the power struggles can
occur whether we recognize them or not. The possibility of
autocracy (traditional definition) is ever present, even in
democracies, and should be addressed.
     Naturally, any written definition of consensus may be amended
in later times. Few constitutions (if any) have remained
unaltered.
     I would like to hear other people's thoughts on this matter.
I also hope that everyone will discuss the issue with their
neighbors. As the heavy metal bands say,"Feedback is important."

THis topic is slated for discussion as Old Business at the next Shire
Council meeting. I plan to suggest the Shire adopt at Majority policy to
clear up the confusion on consensus. Ie, if 51% percent think we should
do something, the shire does it. I believe that this will work until we
decide the Shire needs another way to do consensus.

        Pattie

one of the things i find touching about the whole idea of
consensus is that people talk about it like it cannot be
manipulated.  this is a mistake,
and remind me sometime to download The Green Machiavelli,
which is a comforting little document which explains how
to manipulate consensus.

you need to read The Green Machiavelli...

Shire Council's March meeting is tomorrow, at the U-M student Union, at
noon. All are welcome! Anyone at the meeting is allowed to vote, so come
and make yourself heard!

        Pattie

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss