[Prev] [Next] [Index]
[Thread Index]
00845: [WDDM] Re: decisions at wider levels
From: |
Richard Moore <rkm(at)quaylargo.com> |
Date: |
Sat, 16 Dec 2006 16:36:19 +0000 |
Subject: |
[WDDM] Re: decisions at wider levels |
Hi,
Make me understand. Please explain whether a
decision being approved
by (enthusiastic) consensus shall affect only the circle
members, or it may
also affect other people near to them.
Take please as an example the decision about what to do
with the Kyoto
protocol on global warming, that has been decided by the
enthusiastic --
let's suppose -- consensus of the members of the
"U.S. circle".
Thanks, best regards
antonio
Hi Antonio,
Thanks for you query.
Let's consider first a simpler example. Let's say we have a
regional agency that has been democratically chartered to manage the
regional rail network. Rather than a board of directors, our agency
has a 'governing circle' made up of representative of all
stakeholders (workers, communities in the region, neighborhoods near
the rail lines, passengers, etc.). When the circle agrees on policy,
by enthusiastic consensus, it is likely that all the stakeholder
groups would consider the policies to be reasonable. There also needs
to be a review mechanism, if some stakeholders raise objections.
The existing Kyoto protocol exists in a non-democratic context.
It was not created democratically, and it's observance is not dictated
by democratic processes. So the first issue is how global protocols
can be created on a democratic basis. Before trying to go into that
topic, I'd like to see how you respond to the simple example
above.
thanks again,
richard
--original messages--
Doug Everingham wrote:
It seems to me you have accepted the stakeholder-governed
formula approved by
http://www.sociocracy.biz, and Dr Shann Turnbull,
Principal,
International Institute for
Self-governance...
Close, but not quite. They
say:
The "principle
of consent" means that a decision has been taken only when none
of the circle members who are present have any argued and paramount
objection against that decision.
I'm looking for a much stronger form of
consensus, where all the circle members are enthusiastic about the
decision.
Their weaker form of consensus is
designed to 'save time', and encourages people with doubts to go along
with the majority. Those doubts need to be explored and understood.
The person with doubts might be able 'well argue' them, but that does
not diminish their relevance to the wisdom of the decision. The rest
of the group, or a facilitator, needs to draw out the doubts and find
out what's behind them.
rkm
Hi,
Make me understand. Please explain
whether a decision being approved
by (enthusiastic) consensus shall affect
only the circle members, or it may
also affect other people near to
them.
Take please as an example the decision
about what to do with the Kyoto
protocol on global warming, that has been
decided by the enthusiastic --
let's suppose -- consensus of the members
of the "U.S. circle".
Thanks, best regards
antonio
[Prev] [Next] [Index]
[Thread Index]