[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]