On 12/07/2017 08:12 PM, Douglas Lucas wrote:

Hi Edward,

Consensus is agreement by means of votes. It's a hierarchy where those who win the vote impose on those who lose the vote (although sometimes the dissenters just exit altogether).

One no-voting method of collaboration is stigmergy: https://georgiebc.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/stigmergy-2/

See also: https://georgiebc.wordpress.com/2017/02/23/a-societal-singularity/

If voting is involved, it's not consensus-based. There is checking for consensus, as g2s noted. And there is blocking. So one person can block consensus. However, there is social pressure to have persuasive arguments supporting blocks. Blocking for personal reasons will make you very unpopular. There's also the option to stand aside. It's somewhat like abstaining from a vote, when you have a conflict of interest. But you can also stand aside when you don't entirely agree, but don't want to stand in the way of progress.

On 12/07/2017 06:19 PM, g2s wrote:

...

-------- Original message -------- From: Edward Low <edwardlow@riseup.net> Date: 12/7/17 5:03 PM (GMT-08:00) To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: What is consensus?

There is a question I would like to send to the list and get some feedback.

As far as I was told, consensus is a way to reach a decision without the need of voting, so there is no majority nor minority, no one can impose their ways even if they are majority so no lobby and no forcing. Clearly, education is needed for that, so everyone understands the need of giving up a little bit in order to make it work for the common project.

Lately I've been seeing consensus described as voting system, with majorities and minorities. My english is short, so maybe there is a word to describe consensus as a no-voting system to reach a common solution?

Thanks

E. Low

-- Edward Low edwardlow@riseup.net Libertalia (Madagascar)

Consensus implies everyone agrees. Using OccupyWallStreet as example of how it fails when there isn't some sort of at least general agreement, the the BLOCK in the consensus system they used was based on Spanish anarchist unions who were in general avreement on a goal, and a block STOPPED the process until whatever issue the blockung party brought up was resolved.

At Occupy there were so many political interests represented that the BLOCK, it was felt, was being used to disrupt, and it was modified to basically mean you were voting yourself out of the process unless you withdrew the block...

Which turned the process into mob democracy where the largest faction won in spite of problems perceived by people blocking, and OFC, the largest factions were typically scumbag prog-libs.

Rr