On Mar 29, 2008, at 22:11, Rich Teer wrote: > On Sat, 29 Mar 2008, Simon Phipps wrote: > >> I am not requesting unanimity. I am requesting consensus. The two are >> quite different. Consensus exists when no-one objects, and can be >> achieved without unanimity. > > Pedant point: a consensus is the majority. If the number of person > in support of something is greater than the number opposed, the > consensus is those favouring the motion/statement. In other words, > it is possible to have consensus even when people object, provided > their number doesn't exceed that of the supporters.
When I participate in consensus activities at standards bodies and in European government, it means reaching a point in the conversation where no-one wishes to continue to use their veto. For example, we built the Open Mobile Alliance on this approach. When no-one objects enough to "derail" with their veto, it is a very effective and rapid process. Consensus can lead to delay caused by stubbornness if it's the only decision-making mechanism, but in our case it's not since we have regular meetings at which we can switch to majority voting. S. [Wikipedia has a vaguely useful article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus ]
