Anne and Theo Julienne (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 19:07:46 +1100
As Jerry writes in that essay:
"We often had meetings that lasted the entire Monday morning and Friday
morning, sometimes spilling over into the afternoons. "
It takes time, lots of time, to secure consensus-style decisions. That's why
simple majority voting is so popular. Autocratic, dictatorial
decision-making is even more time-efficient, hence its popularity in certain
Survival involves a balanced blend of all styles appropriately applied.
> How about making decisions in such a way that combines some features of
> both majority and consensus voting? One possible blending is described
> this website:
> Essentially, it involves majority vote. However, those who voted in the
> minority were asked if they wanted to explain why they voted that way, and
> after further discussion there could be another vote. (take a look at the
> site for a more detailed description).
> What does everyone think about this?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:16:23 EST