> <> People can argue otherwise, but as
>> before, the majority seems to be a consensus to this policy.
>This is true.
>        Yet,
>        a consensus means nothing but "majority rules" without regard
>        for what's right or wrong.  >

No, actually, "consensus" means something somewhat different than "majority
rules" ... I can speak to this directly, having been in more than one
organization which operated by formal consensus processes.

Speaking informally, "consensus" implies something like an overwelming
majority in agreement, or a great preponderance of opinion.

Formal "consensus" decision making also typically implies that decisions
are made with the agreement of more than a majority, but what's central is
that there is a process for taking into account the views of minorities. In
a typical consensus process, a single person can hold up the decision
making process, either indefinitely or until their views are heard and
considered. If the process is working well, the proposal under
consideration will be modified until all participating will either agree to
it or will "stand outside consensus" but not block the decision.

Formal consensus decision making generally takes longer to do than majority
votes, but the implementatation of decisions may go more smoothly because
minority views have been heard.

(We're not using a formal consensus process here", but still the
connotations of the term differ from "majority rules").

---
    Albert Lunde                      Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu