4 ms·

I think it's somewhat disingenuous of the article to claim to be a history but maintain an almost entirely adversarial tone. It's clear that consensus has issue

I think it's somewhat disingenuous of the article to claim to be a history but maintain an almost entirely adversarial tone. It's clear that consensus has issues at scale, but a more fair analysis might include some settings and constraints where modern consensus-based decision making also does pretty well. For instance, with large, disparate groups of people intending to accomplish something ambitious, things are bound to get hairy no matter what process you use, and all things considered, the consensus process is probably not helping much or the best choice to use. The article is full of examples of this. On the other hand, for small-ish groups of people, who aren't trying to pull off any major new projects, but are instead more interested in maintaining some sort of infrastructure and taking on smaller tasks, my experience has been that formal consensus is pretty great. You might argue that almost any process works with a small group of people... if that's your experience, well, maybe you spend time with less ornery and headstrong people than I do. Living with people is a great example of where consensus can work really well. For small-ish groups, where everyone has to (literally) live with the decision, and especially with the other people who made it, my experience was that the formal consensus process was a pretty great way to ensure that no one felt left out, harbored silent resentment, etc. When we used a consensus-based process to run a collectively-owned co-op where fourteen or so of us lived, it was pretty great. It didn't necessarily lead to more optimal decisions (though it often did), but it did lead to me realizing that theoretical optimality isn't nearly as important to most people as feeling that their voice is being heard, and feeling included in the process. Obvious caveats of good faith etc apply, but in practice, it was rarely an issue.

fineman 11y ago
I've found that informal consensus, the tautological type you have when you don't label it, is good. This is just what you have when everyone has hashed something out and found a solution that fits. But formal consensus is a horrible thing where you're slowly bullied into dropping your objections to something you don't agree with under the guise of everyone agreeing. It's a nightmare because when you're openly bullied you don't have to get up after and tell everyone how wonderful it feels. I'm okay with being the loser in a vote and to have to do your thing, but to have my thing twisted until I'm told we're all happy. Not. It's a compliance trick. The person running it or most invested in it can pick almost anything they want and the victims of the process are often very ... cult-like ... in defending the decision. Which has to be the case because consensuses are literally never defendable with technical arguments or the argument would have sufficed.

fineman 11y ago

I've found that informal consensus, the tautological type you have when you don't label it, is good. This is just what you have when everyone has hashed something out and found a solution that fits. But formal consensus is a horrible thing where you're slowly bullied into dropping your objections to something you don't agree with under the guise of everyone agreeing. It's a nightmare because when you're openly bullied you don't have to get up after and tell everyone how wonderful it feels. I'm okay with being the loser in a vote and to have to do your thing, but to have my thing twisted until I'm told we're all happy. Not. It's a compliance trick. The person running it or most invested in it can pick almost anything they want and the victims of the process are often very ... cult-like ... in defending the decision. Which has to be the case because consensuses are literally never defendable with technical arguments or the argument would have sufficed.