[WikiEN-l] Re: DNA, mediation AND arbitration

Sun Mar 7 20:21:52 UTC 2004

Michael Snow a écrit:

> My personal understanding of consensus is that it falls somewhere 
> between a majority and unanimity. Certainly 50% plus one vote is not a 
> consensus, and Anthere points out that when there's strong minority 
> opposition, a simple majority vote has no value for us. But allowing 
> vetoes is no good either, or we'll be held hostage by the Plautuses (or 
> Plauti?) of the world.

I was not suggesting a general policy, just trying to suggest something 
to get us out of the trap.
In this case, several users believed the vote was a poll, and certainly 
not a binding vote.

> To my mind, consensus means a decision that is supported by a large 
> portion of the group, and takes into account any objections. It does not 
> mean that people with objections have to support the decision.

In the case of an article, this is mandatory. People with objections, 
who do not support the decision, just revert. This can't be ignored. 
Which is also why I suggested that anyone not participating to the 
discussion, should not participate that that particular vote, and that 
anyone not participating to the vote, won't have the authority to oppose 
it (within reasonable time limits)

However,
> by addressing the objections within the consensus, at some point the 
> group is entitled to expect people with objections to acquiesce in the 
> group's decision. This means the proportion of support required for 
> consensus depends partly on the strength of the objections. It also 
> means that a very few people may be so stubborn and recalcitrant that 
> they don't believe a consensus can be reached without including them, or 
> fail to recognize when this happens. At some point, we have to kindly 
> but firmly tell such people that this is not the project for them.
> 
> --Michael Snow

In this case, the consensus solution appear to some, to have been 
essentially crafted to include one of the disputant position, in an 
attempt to get rid of her opposition.

Which is why I suggest that new propositions are crafted from fresh.

Naturally, the cleanest option could be the get rid of the two opponents 
by banning them both (or gently discouraging them enough so that they 
quit the project).