Occupy consensus making, and why I cannot stand it

[docorion]

hrafn wrote a very thoughtful post about the Occupy movement, their consensus decision making process, and how she has been handling her contribution.  and as I read it, I thought about the consensus based decision processes I've either witnessed, or been part of first hand, and all I can say is: go you, but O HALE no, not for me.

I've seen a lot of what

Comments

This.

[missdimple]

This a lot.

[hrafn]

It isn't necessary to either attend a lot of general assemblies (or even one), or participate in a working group, to be involved

[docorion]

You may be right about that last sentence. Among other things, in corporate settings, I've found that often the process of building a consensus takes place outside the meeting. By the time the meeting comes along, most of the discussion has happened informally. (I do see the problem with that if a group affected is not represented in the informal discussions).

But formal consensus modes I have experienced (and watched online, through video of Occupy assemblies) are emotionally grating for me personally. This may be because I have spent considerable time studying more formal methods (read: parliamentary procedure; it was (and still is, somewhat) a hobby). It may be because lots and lots and *lots* of time are spent explaining things. About half way through the "longing" (opposite of briefing), I'm already tired and want to go home. It may be something else. That said, I agree that my issue is probably more with the formal process. It contains too much process for my liking :-)

[hrafn]

Yeah, having to repeat instructions every time, or "this is what we've already decided," because of all the new people is tedious. :P

I go back and forth on what's preferable. I hate long meetings. I especially hate long meetings that would be shorter if people had come to -previous- meetings so they knew what was going on and we didn't all have to sit through YET ANOTHER retelling of every detail. And if you do a lot of fine-tuning of something outside of meetings, then the meetings themselves can be more efficient, but is that the most efficient use of that other person's time? It requires lots of little meetings instead of a few bigger ones. It seems to be how things get done in most organizations, so it must work well enough.

My major problem with hierarchical structures is when the people in charge believe that because they are in charge, they don't need to tell anyone what they are up to.

[hrafn]

Also, in terms of scaling, the group at Wall Street has been considering (and may have decided to implement) a different method called a "spokescouncil" to address some of the issues of scale. I don't understand it well enough to explain it, but people actually are smart enough to realize full-on consensus in GA style doesn't work for everything, and come up with alternatives.

[docorion]

OK, see, now it feels like they're reinventing Athenian democracy. Was that necessary? Couldn't we just call it direct democracy with a supermajority requirement? It would leave less of a bad taste in my mouth.

[hrafn]

I'm sure you know someone with the skills to write a Greasemonkey script to fix that :D