[WDDM] Re: decisions at wider levels

[Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>]

At 9:14 +0000 15-12-2006, Richard Moore wrote:

> 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