I think everyone would like unanimous consensus.
It does occur at times even in current management schemes that rely on majority votes.
I' happy to agree that decisions should be made by total consensus
but hope we agree unanimously that this is unlikely to be attained
in every case.
An old Chinese slogan says "in a grave illness consult 3 doctors".
-- Doug
====
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.
