Consensus decision-making - Wikipedia

Consensus decision-making - Wikipedia
Jump to content
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Group decision-making aiming for universal agreement
For the Wikipedia policy on consensus, see
Wikipedia:Consensus
general assembly
at
Occupy Wall Street
(2011) where people aimed to establish consensus
Members of the
Shimer College
Assembly reaching a consensus through deliberation
Consensus decision-making
is a
group decision-making
process in which participants work together to develop proposals for actions that achieve a broad acceptance.
Consensus
is reached when everyone in the group
assents
to a decision (or
supermajority
; see
stand aside
) even if some do not fully agree to or support all aspects of it. Consensus decision-making in a democracy is
consensus democracy
Consensus differs from
unanimity
, which requires all participants to support a decision.
Origin and meaning of term
edit
The word
consensus
is Latin meaning "agreement, accord", derived from
consentire
meaning "feel together".
A noun,
consensus
can represent a generally accepted opinion
– "general agreement or concord; harmony", "a majority of opinion"
– or the outcome of a consensus decision-making process. This article refers to the process
and
the outcome (e.g. "to decide
by
consensus" and "
consensus was reached").
History
edit
Consensus decision-making, as a self-described practice, originates from several
nonviolent
direct action
groups that were active in the
Civil rights
Peace
and
Women's
movements in the USA during
counterculture of the 1960s
. The practice gained popularity in the 1970s through the
anti-nuclear
movement, and peaked in popularity in the early 1980s.
Consensus spread abroad through the
anti-globalization
and
climate
movements, and has become normalized in
anti-authoritarian
spheres in conjunction with
affinity groups
and ideas of
participatory democracy
and
prefigurative politics
Poster for the
Clamshell Alliance
's first occupation of
Seabrook Station Nuclear Power Plant
, 1977
The
Movement for a New Society
(MNS) has been credited for popularizing consensus decision-making.
Unhappy with the inactivity of the
Religious Society of Friends
(Quakers) against the
Vietnam War
Lawrence Scott
started
A Quaker Action Group
(AQAG) in 1966 to try and encourage activism within the Quakers. By 1971 AQAG members felt they needed not only to end the war, but transform
civil society
as a whole, and renamed AQAG to MNS. MNS members used consensus decision-making from the beginning as an adaptation of the
Quaker decision-making
they were used to. MNS trained the anti-nuclear
Clamshell Alliance
(1976)
and
Abalone Alliance
(1977) to use consensus, and in 1977 published
Resource Manual for a Living Revolution
10
which included a section on consensus.
An earlier account of consensus decision-making comes from the
Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee
11
(SNCC), the main student organization of the
civil rights movement
, founded in 1960. Early SNCC member
Mary King
, later reflected: "we tried to make all decisions by consensus ... it meant discussing a matter and reformulating it until no objections remained".
12
This way of working was brought to the SNCC at its formation by the
Nashville student group
, who had received nonviolence training from
James Lawson
and
Myles Horton
at the
Highlander Folk School
11
However, as the SNCC faced growing internal and external pressure toward the mid-1960s, it developed into a more hierarchical structure, eventually abandoning consensus.
13
Women Strike for Peace
(WSP) are also accounted as independently used consensus from their founding in 1961.
Eleanor Garst
(herself influenced by Quakers) introduced the practice as part of the loose and participatory structure of WSP.
14
As consensus grew in popularity, it became less clear who influenced who.
Food Not Bombs
, which started in 1980 in connection with an occupation of
Seabrook Station Nuclear Power Plant
organized by the
Clamshell Alliance
, adopted consensus for their organization.
15
Consensus was used in the
1999 Seattle WTO protests
, which inspired the
S11 (World Economic Forum protest)
in 2000 to do so too.
16
Consensus was used at the first
Camp for Climate Action
(2006) and subsequent camps.
Occupy Wall Street
(2011) made use of consensus in combination with techniques such as the
people's microphone
and
hand signals
Objectives
edit
Characteristics of consensus decision-making include:
Collaboration
: Participants contribute to a shared proposal and shape it into a decision that meets the concerns of all group members as much as possible.
17
Cooperation
: Participants in an effective consensus process should strive to reach the best possible decision for the group and all of its members, rather than competing for personal preferences.
Egalitarianism
: All members of a consensus decision-making body should be afforded, as much as possible, equal input into the process. All members have the opportunity to present and amend proposals.
Inclusion
: As many
stakeholders
as possible should be involved in a consensus decision-making process.
Participation
: The consensus process should actively solicit the input and
participation
of all decision-makers.
18
Alternative to common decision-making practices
edit
Consensus decision-making is an alternative to commonly practiced
group decision-making
processes.
19
Robert's Rules of Order
, for instance, is a guide book used by many organizations. This book on
Parliamentary Procedure
allows the structuring of debate and passage of proposals that can be approved through a form of
majority
vote. It does not emphasize the goal of full agreement. Critics of such a process believe that it can involve adversarial debate and the formation of competing factions. These dynamics may harm group member relationships and undermine the ability of a group to cooperatively implement a contentious decision. Consensus decision-making attempts to address the beliefs of such problems. Proponents claim that outcomes of the consensus process include:
17
20
Better decisions: Through including the input of all stakeholders the resulting proposals may better address all potential concerns.
Better implementation: A process that includes and respects all parties, and generates as much agreement as possible sets the stage for greater cooperation in implementing the resulting decisions.
Better group relationships: A cooperative, collaborative group atmosphere can foster greater group cohesion and interpersonal connection.
Decision rules
edit
Consensus is not synonymous with
unanimity
– though that may be a rule agreed to in a specific decision-making process. The level of agreement necessary to finalize a decision is known as a
decision rule
17
21
Diversity of opinion is normal in most all situations, and will be represented proportionately in an appropriately functioning group.
Even with goodwill and social awareness, citizens are likely to disagree in their political opinions and judgments. Differences of interest as well as of perception and values will lead the citizens to divergent views about how to direct and use the organized political power of the community, in order to promote and protect common interests. If political representatives reflect this diversity, then there will be as much disagreement in the legislature as there is in the population.
22
Blocking and other forms of dissent
edit
To ensure the agreement or consent of all participants is valued, many groups choose unanimity or near-unanimity as their decision rule. Groups that require unanimity allow individual participants the option of blocking a group decision. This provision motivates a group to make sure that all group members consent to any new proposal before it is adopted. When there is potential for a block to a group decision, both the group and dissenters in the group are encouraged to collaborate until agreement can be reached. Simply
vetoing
a decision is not considered a responsible use of consensus blocking. Some common guidelines for the use of consensus blocking include:
17
23
Providing an option for those who do not support a proposal to "stand aside" rather than block.
Requiring a block from two or more people to put a proposal aside.
Requiring the blocking party to supply an alternative proposal or a process for generating one.
24
Limiting each person's option to block consensus to a handful of times in one's life.
Limiting the option of blocking to decisions that are substantial to the mission or operation of the group and not allowing blocking on routine decisions.
Limiting the allowable rationale for blocking to issues that are fundamental to the group's mission or potentially disastrous to the group.
Dissent options
edit
A participant who does not support a proposal may have alternatives to simply blocking it. Some common options may include the ability to:
Declare reservations
: Group members who are willing to let a motion pass but desire to register their concerns with the group may choose "declare reservations." If there are significant reservations about a motion, the decision-making body may choose to modify or re-word the proposal.
25
Stand aside
: A "stand aside" may be registered by a group member who has a "serious personal disagreement" with a proposal, but is willing to let the motion pass. Although stand asides do not halt a motion, it is often regarded as a strong "nay vote" and the concerns of group members standing aside are usually addressed by modifications to the proposal. Stand asides may also be registered by users who feel they are incapable of adequately understanding or participating in the proposal.
26
27
28
Object
: Any group member may "object" to a proposal. In groups with a unanimity decision rule, a single block is sufficient to stop a proposal. Other decision rules may require more than one objection for a proposal to be blocked or not pass (see previous section,
§ Decision rules
).
Process models
edit
The basic model for achieving consensus as defined by any decision rule involves:
Collaboratively generating a proposal
Identifying unsatisfied concerns
Modifying the proposal to generate as much agreement as possible
All attempts at achieving consensus begin with a good faith attempt at generating full-agreement, regardless of decision rule threshold.
Spokescouncil
edit
In the
spokescouncil
model,
affinity groups
make joint decisions by each designating a speaker and sitting behind that circle of spokespeople, akin to the
spokes
of a wheel. While speaking rights might be limited to each group's designee, the meeting may allot breakout time for the constituent groups to discuss an issue and return to the circle via their spokesperson. In the case of an activist spokescouncil preparing for the
A16 Washington D.C. protests in 2000
, affinity groups disputed their spokescouncil's imposition of nonviolence in their action guidelines. They received the reprieve of letting groups self-organize their protests, and as the city's protest was subsequently divided into pie slices, each blockaded by an affinity group's choice of protest. Many of the participants learned about the spokescouncil model on the fly by participating in it directly, and came to better understand their planned action by hearing others' concerns and voicing their own.
29
Modified Borda Count vote
edit
In
Designing an All-Inclusive Democracy
(2007), Emerson proposes a consensus oriented approach based on the
Modified Borda Count
(MBC) voting method. The group first elects, say, three referees or consensors. The debate on the chosen problem is initiated by the facilitator calling for proposals. Every proposed option is accepted if the referees decide it is relevant and conforms with the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
. The referees produce and display a list of these options. The debate proceeds, with queries, comments, criticisms and/or even new options. If the debate fails to come to a verbal consensus, the referees draw up a final list of options - usually between 4 and 6 - to represent the debate. When all agree, the chair calls for a preferential vote, as per the rules for a Modified Borda Count. The referees decide which option, or which composite of the two leading options, is the outcome. If its level of support surpasses a minimum consensus coefficient, it may be adopted.
30
31
Blocking
edit
Flowchart of basic consensus decision-making process
Groups that require unanimity commonly use a core set of procedures depicted in this flow chart.
32
33
34
Once an agenda for discussion has been set and, optionally, the ground rules for the meeting have been agreed upon, each item of the agenda is addressed in turn. Typically, each decision arising from an agenda item follows through a simple structure:
Discussion of the item
: The item is discussed with the goal of identifying opinions and information on the topic at hand. The general direction of the group and potential proposals for action are often identified during the discussion.
Formation of a proposal
: Based on the discussion a formal decision proposal on the issue is presented to the group.
Call for consensus
: The facilitator of the decision-making body calls for consensus on the proposal. Each member of the group usually must actively state whether they agree or consent, stand aside, or object, often by using a hand gesture or raising a colored card, to avoid the group
interpreting silence or inaction as agreement
. The number of objections is counted to determine if this step's consent threshold is satisfied. If it is, dissenters are asked to share their concerns with proceeding with the agreement, so that any potential harms can be addressed/minimized. This can happen even if the consent threshold is unanimity, especially if many voters stand aside.
Identification and addressing of concerns
: If consensus is not achieved, each dissenter presents their concerns on the proposal, potentially starting another round of discussion to address or clarify the concern.
Modification of the proposal
: The proposal is amended, re-phrased or
ridered
in an attempt to address the concerns of the decision-makers. The process then returns to the call for consensus and the cycle is repeated until a satisfactory decision passes the consent threshold for the group.
Quaker-based model
edit
Quaker
-based consensus
35
is said to be effective because it puts in place a simple, time-tested structure that moves a group towards unity. The Quaker model is intended to allow hearing individual voices while providing a mechanism for dealing with disagreements.
20
36
37
The Quaker model has been adapted by
Earlham College
for application to secular settings, and can be effectively applied in any consensus decision-making process.
Its process includes:
Multiple concerns and information are shared until the sense of the group is clear.
Discussion involves
active listening
and sharing information.
Norms limit number of times one asks to speak to ensure that each speaker is fully heard.
Ideas and solutions belong to the group; no names are recorded.
Ideally, differences are resolved by discussion. The
facilitator
("clerk" or "convenor" in the Quaker model) identifies areas of agreement and names disagreements to push discussion deeper.
The facilitator articulates the sense of the discussion, asks if there are other concerns, and proposes a "
minute
" of the decision.
The group as a whole is responsible for the decision and the decision belongs to the group.
The facilitator can discern if one who is not uniting with the decision is acting without concern for the group or in selfish interest.
Ideally, all dissenters' perspectives are synthesized into the final outcome for a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.
35
Should some dissenter's perspective not harmonize with the others, that dissenter may "stand aside" to allow the group to proceed, or may opt to "block". "Standing aside" implies a certain form of silent consent. Some groups allow "blocking" by even a single individual to halt or postpone the entire process.
20
Key components of Quaker-based consensus include a belief in a common
humanity
and the ability to decide together. The goal is "unity, not unanimity." Ensuring that group members speak only once until others are heard encourages a diversity of thought. The facilitator is understood as serving the group rather than acting as person-in-charge.
38
In the Quaker model, as with other consensus decision-making processes, articulating the emerging consensus allows members to be clear on the decision in front of them. As members' views are taken into account they are likely to support it.
39
Roles
edit
The consensus decision-making process often has several roles designed to make the process run more effectively. Although the name and nature of these roles varies from group to group, the most common are the
facilitator
consensor
, a timekeeper, an empath and a secretary or notes taker. Not all decision-making bodies use all of these roles, although the facilitator position is almost always filled, and some groups use supplementary roles, such as a
Devil's advocate
or greeter. Some decision-making bodies rotate these roles through the group members in order to build the experience and skills of the participants, and prevent any perceived concentration of power.
40
The common roles in a consensus meeting are:
Facilitator
: As the name implies, the role of the facilitator is to help make the process of reaching a consensus decision easier. Facilitators accept responsibility for moving through the agenda on time; ensuring the group adheres to the mutually agreed-upon mechanics of the consensus process; and, if necessary, suggesting alternate or additional discussion or decision-making techniques, such as go-arounds, break-out groups or role-playing.
41
42
Some consensus groups use two co-facilitators. Shared
facilitation
is often adopted to diffuse the perceived power of the facilitator and create a system whereby a co-facilitator can pass off facilitation duties if he or she becomes more personally engaged in a debate.
43
Consensor
: The team of consensors is responsible for accepting those relevant proposals; for displaying an initial list of these options; for drawing up a balanced list of options to represent the entire debate; to analyse the preferences cast in any subsequent ballot; and, if need be, to determine the composite decision from the two most popular options.
Timekeeper
: The purpose of the timekeeper is to ensure the decision-making body keeps to the schedule set in the agenda. Effective timekeepers use a variety of techniques to ensure the meeting runs on time including: giving frequent time updates, ample warning of short time, and keeping individual speakers from taking an excessive amount of time.
40
Empath
or
vibe watch
: The empath, or 'vibe watch' as the position is sometimes called, is charged with monitoring the 'emotional climate' of the meeting, taking note of the body language and other
non-verbal cues
of the participants. Defusing potential emotional conflicts, maintaining a climate free of intimidation and being aware of potentially destructive power dynamics, such as sexism or racism within the decision-making body, are the primary responsibilities of the empath.
41
Note taker
: The role of the notes taker or secretary is to document the decisions, discussion and action points of the decision-making body.
Tools and methods
edit
Front face, back face and embossing mask for colored consensus cards
Some consensus decision-making bodies use a system of colored cards to indicate speaker priority. For instance, red cards to indicate feedback on a breach in rules or decorum, yellow cards for clarifying questions, and green cards for desire to speak.
24
Hand signals
are another method for reading a room's positions nonverbally. They work well with groups of fewer than 250 people and especially with multi-lingual groups.
44
The nature and meaning of individual gestures varies between groups, but a widely adopted core set of hand signals include: wiggling of the fingers on both hands, a gesture sometimes referred to as "twinkling", to indicate agreement; raising a fist or crossing both forearms with hands in fists to indicate a block or strong disagreement; and making a "T" shape with both hands, the "time out" gesture, to call attention to a point of process or order.
45
46
One common set of hand signals is called the "Fist-to-Five" or "Fist-of-Five". In this method each member of the group can hold up a fist to indicate blocking consensus, one finger to suggest changes, two fingers to discuss minor issues, three fingers to indicate willingness to let issue pass without further discussion, four fingers to affirm the decision as a good idea, and five fingers to volunteer to take a lead in implementing the decision.
47
A similar set of hand signals
are used by the
Occupy Wall Street
protesters in their group negotiations.
48
First-past-the-post
is used as a
fall-back method
when consensus cannot be reached within a given time frame.
49
If the potential outcome of the fall-back method can be anticipated, then those who support that outcome have incentives to block consensus so that the fall-back method gets applied. Special fall-back methods have been developed that reduce this incentive.
50
Criticism
edit
Criticism of blocking
edit
Critics of consensus blocking often observe that the option, while potentially effective for small groups of motivated or trained individuals with a sufficiently high degree of
affinity
, has a number of possible shortcomings, notably
Preservation of the status quo
: In decision-making bodies that use formal consensus, the ability of individuals or small minorities to block agreement gives an enormous advantage to anyone who supports the existing state of affairs. This can mean that a specific state of affairs can continue to exist in an organization long after a majority of members would like it to change.
51
Susceptibility to widespread disagreement
: Giving the right to block proposals to all group members may result in the group becoming hostage to an inflexible minority or individual. When a popular proposal is blocked the group actually experiences widespread disagreement, the opposite of the consensus process's goal. Furthermore, "opposing such obstructive behavior [can be] construed as an attack on
freedom of speech
and in turn [harden] resolve on the part of the individual to defend their position."
52
As a result, consensus decision-making has the potential to reward the least accommodating group members while punishing the most accommodating.
Stagnation and group dysfunction
: When groups cannot make the decisions necessary to function (because they cannot resolve blocks), they may lose effectiveness in accomplishing their mission.
Susceptibility to splitting and excluding members
: When high levels of group member frustration result from blocked decisions or inordinately long meetings, members may leave the group, try to get to others to leave, or limit who has entry to the group.
Channeling decisions away from an inclusive group process
: When group members view the status quo as unjustly difficult to change through a whole group process, they may begin to delegate decision-making to smaller committees or to an executive committee. In some cases members begin to act unilaterally because they are frustrated with a stagnated group process.
Groupthink
edit
Consensus seeks to improve
solidarity
in the long run. Accordingly, it should not be confused with
unanimity
in the immediate situation, which is often a symptom of
groupthink
. Studies of effective consensus process usually indicate a
shunning
of unanimity or "illusion of unanimity"
53
that does not hold up as a group comes under real-world pressure (when dissent reappears).
Cory Doctorow
Ralph Nader
and other proponents of
deliberative democracy
or judicial-like methods view explicit dissent as a symbol of strength.
In his book about Wikipedia,
Joseph Reagle
considers the merits and challenges of consensus in open and online communities.
54
Randy Schutt,
55
Starhawk
56
and other practitioners of
direct action
focus on the hazards of apparent agreement followed by action in which group splits become dangerously obvious.
Unanimous, or apparently unanimous, decisions can have drawbacks.
57
They may be symptoms of a
systemic bias
, a rigged process (where an
agenda
is not published in advance or changed when it becomes clear who is present to consent), fear of speaking one's mind, a lack of creativity (to suggest alternatives) or even a lack of courage (to go further along the same road to a more extreme solution that would not achieve unanimous consent).
Unanimity is achieved when the full group apparently consents to a decision. It has disadvantages insofar as further disagreement, improvements or better ideas then remain hidden, but effectively ends the debate moving it to an implementation phase. Some consider all unanimity a form of groupthink, and some experts propose "coding systems ... for detecting the illusion of unanimity symptom".
58
In
Consensus is not Unanimity
, long-time progressive change activist Randy Schutt writes:
Many people think of consensus as simply an extended voting method in which everyone must cast their votes the same way. Since unanimity of this kind rarely occurs in groups with more than one member, groups that try to use this kind of process usually end up being either extremely frustrated or coercive. Decisions are never made (leading to the demise of the group), they are made covertly, or some group or individual dominates the rest. Sometimes a majority dominates, sometimes a minority, sometimes an individual who employs "the Block." But no matter how it is done, this coercive process is
not
consensus.
55
Confusion between unanimity and consensus, in other words, usually causes consensus decision-making to fail, and the group then either reverts to majority or supermajority rule or disbands.
Most robust models of consensus exclude uniformly unanimous decisions and require at least documentation of minority concerns. Some state clearly that unanimity is not consensus but rather evidence of intimidation, lack of imagination, lack of courage, failure to include all voices, or deliberate exclusion of the contrary views.
Criticism of majority voting processes
edit
Some proponents of consensus decision-making view procedures that use
majority rule
as undesirable for several reasons. Majority
voting
is regarded as
competitive
, rather than
cooperative
, framing decision-making in a win/lose dichotomy that ignores the possibility of
compromise
or other mutually beneficial solutions.
59
Carlos Santiago Nino, on the other hand, has argued that majority rule leads to better deliberation practice than the alternatives, because it requires each member of the group to make arguments that appeal to at least half the participants.
60
Some advocates of consensus would assert that a majority decision reduces the commitment of each individual decision-maker to the decision. Members of a minority position may feel less commitment to a majority decision, and even majority voters who may have taken their positions along party or bloc lines may have a sense of reduced responsibility for the ultimate decision. The result of this reduced commitment, according to many consensus proponents, is potentially less willingness to defend or act upon the decision.
Majority voting cannot measure consensus. Indeed,—so many 'for' and so many 'against'—it measures the very opposite, the degree of dissent. The
Modified Borda Count
has been put forward as a voting method which better approximates consensus.
61
31
30
Additional critical perspectives
edit
Some formal models based on
graph theory
attempt to explore the implications of suppressed
dissent
and subsequent sabotage of the group as it takes action.
62
High-stakes decision-making, such as judicial decisions of appeals courts, always require some such explicit documentation. Consent however is still observed that defies factional explanations. Nearly 40% of the decisions of the
United States Supreme Court
, for example, are unanimous, though often for widely varying reasons. "Consensus in Supreme Court voting, particularly the extreme consensus of unanimity, has often puzzled Court observers who adhere to ideological accounts of judicial decision making."
63
Historical evidence is mixed on whether particular Justices' views were suppressed in favour of public unity.
64
Heitzig and Simmons (2012) suggest using random selection as a fall-back method to strategically incentivize consensus over blocking.
50
However, this makes it very difficult to tell the difference between those who support the decision and those who merely tactically tolerate it for the incentive. Once they receive that incentive, they may undermine or refuse to implement the agreement in various and non-obvious ways. In general
voting systems
avoid allowing offering incentives (or "bribes") to change a heartfelt vote.
In the
Abilene paradox
, a group can unanimously agree on a course of action that no individual member of the group desires because no one individual is willing to go against the perceived will of the decision-making body.
65
Since consensus decision-making focuses on discussion and seeks the input of all participants, it can be a time-consuming process. This is a potential liability in situations where decisions must be made speedily, or where it is not possible to canvass opinions of all delegates in a reasonable time. Additionally, the time commitment required to engage in the consensus decision-making process can sometimes act as a barrier to participation for individuals unable or unwilling to make the commitment.
66
However, once a decision has been reached it can be acted on more quickly than a decision handed down. American businessmen complained that in negotiations with a Japanese company, they had to discuss the idea with everyone even the janitor, yet once a decision was made the Americans found the Japanese were able to act much quicker because everyone was on board, while the Americans had to struggle with internal opposition.
67
Similar practices
edit
Outside of Western culture, multiple other cultures have used consensus decision-making. One early example is the
Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy Grand Council
, which used a 75% supermajority to finalize its decisions,
68
potentially as early as 1142.
69
In the
Xulu
and
Xhosa
(South African) process of
indaba
, community leaders gather to listen to the public and negotiate
figurative thresholds
towards an acceptable compromise. The technique was also used during the
2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference
70
71
In
Aceh
and
Nias
cultures (Indonesian), family and regional disputes, from playground fights to estate inheritance, are handled through a
musyawarah
consensus-building process in which parties mediate to find peace and avoid future hostility and revenge. The resulting agreements are expected to be followed, and range from advice and warnings to compensation and exile.
72
73
The origins of
formal consensus
-making can be traced significantly further back, to the
Religious Society of Friends
, or Quakers, who adopted the technique as early as the 17th century.
74
Anabaptists
, including some
Mennonites
, have a history of using consensus decision-making
75
and some believe Anabaptists practiced consensus as early as the
Martyrs' Synod
of 1527.
74
Some Christians trace consensus decision-making
back to the Bible
. The Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia references, in particular, Acts 15
76
as an example of consensus in the New Testament. The lack of legitimate consensus process in the unanimous conviction of Jesus by corrupt priests
77
in an illegally held
Sanhedrin
court (which had rules preventing unanimous conviction in a hurried process) strongly influenced the views of pacifist Protestants, including the Anabaptists (Mennonites/Amish), Quakers and Shakers. In particular it influenced their distrust of expert-led courtrooms and to "be clear about process" and convene in a way that assures that "everyone must be heard".
78
The
Modified Borda Count
voting method has been advocated as more 'consensual' than majority voting, by, among others, by
Ramón Llull
in 1199, by
Nicholas Cusanus
in 1435, by
Jean-Charles de Borda
in 1784, by
Hother Hage
in 1860, by
Charles Dodgson
(Lewis Carroll) in 1884, and by
Peter Emerson
in 1986.
Japanese business
edit
Japanese companies normally use consensus decision-making, meaning that unanimous support on the board of directors is sought for any decision.
79
ringi-sho
is a circulation document used to obtain agreement. It must first be signed by the lowest level manager, and then upwards, and may need to be revised and the process started over.
80
IETF rough consensus model
edit
In the
Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF), decisions are assumed to be taken by
rough consensus
81
The IETF has studiously refrained from defining a mechanical method for verifying such consensus, apparently in the belief that any such codification leads to attempts to "
game the system
." Instead, a
working group
(WG) chair or
BoF
chair is supposed to articulate the "sense of the group."
One tradition in support of rough consensus is the tradition of humming rather than (countable) hand-raising; this allows a group to quickly discern the prevalence of dissent, without making it easy to slip into
majority rule
82
Much of the business of the IETF is carried out on
mailing lists
, where all parties can speak their views at all times.
Social constructivism model
edit
In 2001,
Robert Rocco Cottone
published a consensus-based model of professional decision-making for counselors and psychologists.
83
Based on
social constructivist
philosophy, the model operates as a consensus-building model, as the clinician addresses ethical conflicts through a process of negotiating to consensus. Conflicts are resolved by consensually agreed on arbitrators who are selected early in the negotiation process.
US Bureau of Land Management collaborative stakeholder engagement
edit
The United States
Bureau of Land Management
's policy is to seek to use collaborative
stakeholder engagement
as standard operating practice for natural resources projects, plans, and decision-making except under unusual conditions such as when constrained by law, regulation, or other mandates or when conventional processes are important for establishing new, or reaffirming existing, precedent.
84
Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth
edit
The
Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth
of 1569–1795 used consensus decision-making in the form of
liberum veto
('free veto') in its
Sejms
(legislative assemblies). A type of
unanimous consent
, the
liberum veto
originally allowed any member of a Sejm to veto an individual law by shouting
Sisto activitatem!
(Latin: "I stop the activity!") or
Nie pozwalam!
(Polish: "I do not allow!").
85
Over time it developed into a much more extreme form, where any Sejm member could unilaterally and immediately force the end of the current session and nullify any previously passed legislation from that session.
86
Due to excessive use and sabotage from neighboring powers bribing Sejm members, legislating became very difficult and weakened the Commonwealth. Soon after the Commonwealth banned
liberum veto
as part of its
Constitution of 3 May 1791
, it dissolved under pressure from neighboring powers.
87
Sociocracy
edit
Sociocracy
has many of the same aims as consensus and is in applied in a similar range of situations.
88
It is slightly different in that broad support for a proposal is defined as the lack of disagreement (sometimes called 'reasoned objection') rather than affirmative agreement.
89
To reflect this difference from the common understanding of the word consensus, in Sociocracy the process is called gaining 'consent' (not consensus).
90
See also
edit
Consensus based assessment
Consensus democracy
Consensus government
Consensus reality
Consensus theory of truth
Contrarian
Copenhagen Consensus
Deliberation
Dialogue mapping
Ethics of Dissensus
Jirga
Libertarian socialism
Nonviolence
Polder model
Quaker decision-making
Scientific consensus
Seattle process
Silent majority
Social representations
Sociocracy
Systemic Consensus
Notes
edit
McGann, Anthony J.; Latner, Michael (2013).
"The Calculus of Consensus Democracy"
Comparative Political Studies
46
(7):
823–
850.
doi
10.1177/0010414012463883
"consensus"
Online Etymology Dictionary
. Retrieved
2 August
2020
"consensus"
dictionary.cambridge.org
. 28 January 2026
. Retrieved
30 January
2026
The Random House Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged)], New York, 1967, p. 312
Leach, Darcy K. (1 February 2016).
"When Freedom Is Not an Endless Meeting: A New Look at Efficiency in Consensus-Based Decision Making"
The Sociological Quarterly
57
(1):
36–
70.
doi
10.1111/tsq.12137
ISSN
0038-0253
S2CID
147292061
The popularity of consensus decision making has waxed and waned with the impulse toward participatory democracy and has become more mainstream over time. The last major wave in the United States began in the 1960s, gained momentum in the 1970s ... and peaked in the early 1980s, in the direct action wings of the women's, peace, and antinuclear movements
"Anarchism and the Movement for a New Society: Direct Action and Prefigurative Community in the 1970s and 80s By Andrew Cornell | The Institute for Anarchist Studies"
. 1 April 2010. Archived from
the original
on 1 April 2010
. Retrieved
21 May
2022
Though rarely remembered by name today, many of the new ways of doing radical politics that the Movement for a New Society (MNS) promoted have become central to contemporary anti-authoritarian social movements. MNS popularized consensus decision-making, introduced the spokescouncil method of organization to activists in the United States, and was a leading advocate of a variety of practices—communal living, unlearning oppressive behavior, creating co-operatively owned businesses—that are now often subsumed under the rubric of "prefigurative politics." ... From the outset, MNS members relied on a consensus decision-making process, and rejected domineering forms of leadership prevalent in 1960s radical groups.
Graeber, David (2010).
"The rebirth of anarchism in North America, 1957-2007"
Historia Actual Online
(21):
123–
131.
doi
10.36132/hao.v0i21.419
ISSN
1696-2060
. Archived from
the original
on 13 February 2023
. Retrieved
30 May
2022
The main inspiration for anti-nuclear activists—at least the main organizational inspiration—came from a group called the Movement for a New Society (MNS), based in Philadelphia.
"Anarchism and the Movement for a New Society: Direct Action and Prefigurative Community in the 1970s and 80s By Andrew Cornell | The Institute for Anarchist Studies"
. 1 April 2010. Archived from
the original
on 1 April 2010
. Retrieved
22 May
2022
MNS trainers traveled throughout New England in early 1977, facilitating workshops on non-violent direct action with members and supporters of the Clamshell Alliance, the largest anti-nuclear organization on the East Coast, which was coordinating the action.
"Anti-Nuclear Protests by Sanderson Beck"
san.beck.org
. Retrieved
21 May
2022
The Movement for a New Society (MNS) from Philadelphia had influenced the Clamshell, and David Hartsough, who had also worked for civil rights in the South, brought their nonviolence tactics, affinity group structure, and consensus processes to California
Resource manual for a living revolution
. Virginia Coover. [Philadelphia]: New Society Press. 1977.
ISBN
0-686-28494-1
OCLC
3662455
{{
cite book
}}
: CS1 maint: others (
link
Blunden, Andy (2016).
The origins of collective decision making
. Leiden.
ISBN
978-90-04-31963-9
OCLC
946968538
{{
cite book
}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link
King, Mary.
"Mary E. King » The short and the long of creating democracy"
. Retrieved
21 May
2022
In SNCC, we tried to make all decisions by consensus—something in the news earlier this autumn with the Occupy Wall Street movement. The achievement of consensus, however, is far from simple. In SNCC it meant discussing a matter and reformulating it until no objections remained. Everyone and anyone present could speak. Participants included those of us on staff (a SNCC field secretary was paid $10 weekly, $9.64 after tax deductions), but, as time went on, an increasing number of local people would participate as well—individuals whom we were encouraging and coaching for future leadership. Our meetings were protracted and never efficient. Making a major decision might take three days and two nights. This sometimes meant that the decision was in effect made by those who remained and were still awake!
"Anarchism and the Movement for a New Society: Direct Action and Prefigurative Community in the 1970s and 80s By Andrew Cornell | The Institute for Anarchist Studies"
. 1 April 2010. Archived from
the original
on 1 April 2010
. Retrieved
29 May
2022
Yet, in the later 1960s, both the Black Freedom movement and the student movement, smarting from repression on the one hand, and elated by radical victories at home and abroad on the other, moved away from this emergent, anarchistic, political space distinguished from both liberalism and Marxism. Many civil rights organizers took up nationalist politics in hierarchical organizations, while some of the most committed members of SDS returned to variants of Marxist-Leninism and democratic socialism.
Swerdlow, Amy (1982).
"Ladies' Day at the Capitol: Women Strike for Peace versus HUAC"
Feminist Studies
(3):
493–
520.
doi
10.2307/3177709
hdl
2027/spo.0499697.0008.303
JSTOR
3177709
Eleanor Garst, one of the Washington founders, explained the attractions of the un-organizational format: "... Any woman who has an idea can propose it through an informal memo system; if enough women think it's good, it's done. Those who don't like a particular action don't have to drop out of the movement; they just sit out that action and wait for one they like."
"Food Not Bombs"
foodnotbombs.net
. Retrieved
22 May
2022
Food Not Bombs started after the May 24, 1980 protest to stop the Seabrook Nuclear power station north of Boston in New Hampshire in the United States.
Blunden, Andy (2016).
The origins of collective decision making
. Leiden.
ISBN
978-90-04-31963-9
OCLC
946968538
My next encounter with Consensus was in 2000 at the protest at the World Economic Forum held on 11–13 September that year, known as S11 and modelled on the events the previous year in Seattle. It was the anarchists who had taken the initiative to organise this event and mass meetings were being held to plan the protest for many months leading up to the day. The anarchists were by far the majority in these planning meetings and decided on the agenda and norms for these at their own meeting held elsewhere beforehand, so a fully developed form of Consensus predominated at all the planning meetings.
{{
cite book
}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link
Hartnett, Tim (26 April 2011).
Consensus-Oriented Decision-Making: The CODM Model for Facilitating Groups to Widespread Agreement
. New Society Publishers.
ISBN
978-0-86571-689-6
Rob Sandelin.
"Consensus Basics, Ingredients of successful consensus process"
Northwest Intentional Communities Association guide to consensus
. Northwest Intentional Communities Association. Archived from
the original
on 9 February 2007
. Retrieved
17 January
2007
"Articles on Meeting Facilitation, Consensus, Santa Cruz California"
. Groupfacilitation.net
. Retrieved
29 August
2011
Bressen, Tree (2006).
"16. Consensus Decision Making"
(PDF)
Change Handbook
Archived
(PDF)
from the original on 26 October 2014.
Kaner, Sam (26 April 2007).
Facilitator's Guide to Participatory Decision-Making
. John Wiley & Sons Inc.
ISBN
9780787982669
Weale, Albert (1999).
"Unanimity, Consensus and Majority Rule"
Democracy
. pp.
124–
147.
doi
10.1007/978-1-349-27291-4_7
ISBN
978-0-333-56755-5
Christian, Diana Leafe (2003).
Creating a Life Together: Practical Tools to Grow Ecovillages and Intentional Communities
. New Society Publishers.
ISBN
978-0-86571-471-7
"The Consensus Decision Process in Cohousing"
. Canadian Cohousing Network. Archived from
the original
on 26 February 2007
. Retrieved
28 January
2007
Richard Bruneau (2003).
"If Agreement Cannot Be Reached"
Participatory Decision-Making in a Cross-Cultural Context
. Canada World Youth. p. 37. Archived from
the original
(DOC)
on 27 September 2007
. Retrieved
17 January
2007
Consensus Development Project (1998).
"FRONTIER: A New Definition"
. Frontier Education Center. Archived from
the original
on 12 December 2006
. Retrieved
17 January
2007
Rachel Williams; Andrew McLeod (2008).
"Consensus Decision-Making"
(PDF)
Cooperative Starter Series
. Northwest Cooperative Development Center. Archived from
the original
(PDF)
on 14 March 2012
. Retrieved
9 December
2012
Dorcas; Ellyntari (2004).
"Amazing Graces' Guide to Consensus Process"
. Retrieved
17 January
2007
Jeppesen, Sandra; Adamiak, Joanna (2017).
"Street Theory: Grassroots Activist Interventions in Regimes of Knowledge"
. In Haworth, Robert H.; Elmore, John M. (eds.).
Out of the Ruins: The Emergence of Radical Informal Learning Spaces
. PM Press. p. 291.
ISBN
978-1-62963-319-0
Emerson, Peter J. (2007).
Designing an all-inclusive democracy : consensual voting procedures for use in parliaments, councils and committees
. Berlin: Springer.
ISBN
9783540331643
OCLC
184986280
"What is a modified Borda count?"
The de Borda Institute
. Archived from
the original
on 28 July 2020
. Retrieved
28 June
2019
"The Basics of Consensus Decision Making"
Consensus Decision Making
. ConsensusDecisionMaking.org. 17 February 2015
. Retrieved
17 February
2015
What is Consensus?
. The Common Place. 2005. Archived from
the original
on 15 October 2006
. Retrieved
17 January
2007
"The Process"
Consensus Decision Making
. Seeds for Change. 1 December 2005
. Retrieved
17 January
2007
"A Comparison of Quaker-based Consensus and Robert's Rules of Order"
Quaker Foundations of Leadership, 1999
. Archived from
the original
on 20 October 2011
. Retrieved
1 March
2009
Berry, Fran; Snyder, Monteze (1998).
"Notes prepared for Round table: Teaching Consensus-building in the Classroom"
. Quaker Foundations of Leadership, 1999. Archived from
the original
on 11 October 2008
. Retrieved
1 March
2009
Woodrow, Peter (1999).
"BUILDING CONSENSUS AMONG MULTIPLE PARTIES: The Experience of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission"
Program in Quaker Foundations of Leadership
. Archived from
the original
on 28 August 2008.
"Our Distinctive Approach"
. Quaker Foundations of Leadership, 1999. Archived from
the original
on 20 October 2011
. Retrieved
1 March
2009
"Public Policy Consensus & Mediation: State of Maine Best Practices - What is a Consensus Process?"
Maine.gov
. Archived from
the original
on 12 December 2008.
C.T. Lawrence Butler; Amy Rothstein.
"On Conflict and Consensus"
. Food Not Bombs Publishing. Archived from
the original
on 26 October 2011
. Retrieved
31 October
2011
Sheila Kerrigan (2004).
"How To Use a Consensus Process To Make Decisions"
. Community Arts Network. Archived from
the original
on 19 June 2006
. Retrieved
17 January
2007
Waller, Lori.
"Meeting Facilitation"
The Otesha Project
Archived
from the original on 7 August 2020
. Retrieved
7 August
2020
Berit Lakey (1975).
"Meeting Facilitation – The No-Magic Method"
. Network Service Collaboration. Archived from
the original
on 31 December 2006
. Retrieved
17 January
2007
Haverkamp, Jan (1999).
"Non-verbal communication - a solution for complex group settings"
Zhaba Facilitators Collective
. Archived from
the original
on 23 February 2005.
"A Handbook for Direct Democracy and the Consensus Decision Process"
(PDF)
. Zhaba Facilitators Collective. Archived from
the original
(PDF)
on 14 July 2006
. Retrieved
18 January
2007
"Hand Signals"
(PDF)
. Seeds for Change. Archived from
the original
(PDF)
on 27 September 2007
. Retrieved
18 January
2007
"Guide for Facilitators: Fist-to-Five Consensus-Building"
. Freechild.org. Archived from
the original
on 19 February 2015
. Retrieved
4 February
2008
The Salt Lake Tribune.
"Utah Local News - Salt Lake City News, Sports, Archive - The Salt Lake Tribune"
Saint, Steven; Lawson, James R. (1994).
Rules for Reaching Consensus: A Modern Approach to Decision Making
. Wiley.
ISBN
978-0-893-84256-7
Heitzig, Jobst; Simmons, Forest W. (2012).
"Some chance for consensus: Voting methods for which consensus is an equilibrium"
(PDF)
Social Choice and Welfare
38
43–
57.
doi
10.1007/s00355-010-0517-y
S2CID
6560809
The Common Wheel Collective (2002).
"Introduction to Consensus"
The Collective Book on Collective Process
. Archived from
the original
on 30 June 2006
. Retrieved
17 January
2007
Alan McCluskey (1999).
"Consensus building and verbal desperados"
. Archived from
the original
on 9 February 2007
. Retrieved
17 January
2007
Welch Cline, Rebecca J (1990). "Detecting groupthink: Methods for observing the illusion of unanimity".
Communication Quarterly
38
(2):
112–
126.
doi
10.1080/01463379009369748
Reagle, Joseph M. Jr.
(30 September 2010).
"The challenges of consensus"
Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia
. MIT Press. p. 100.
ISBN
978-0-262-01447-2
Available for free download in multiple formats at:
Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia
at the
Internet Archive
Schutt, Randy (13 June 2016).
"Consensus Is Not Unanimity: Making Decisions Cooperatively"
www.vernalproject.org
. Retrieved
26 August
2020
Starhawk.
"Consensus Decision Making Articles for learning how to use consensus process - Adapted from Randy Schutt"
Consensus Decision-Making
Archived
from the original on 13 February 2008
. Retrieved
26 August
2020
Schermers, Henry G.; Blokker, Niels M. (2011).
International Institutional Law
. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 547.
ISBN
978-9004187986
. Retrieved
29 February
2016
Cline, Rebecca J. Welch (2009). "Detecting groupthink: Methods for observing the illusion of unanimity".
Communication Quarterly
38
(2):
112–
126.
doi
10.1080/01463379009369748
Friedrich Degenhardt (2006).
"Consensus: a colourful farewell to majority rule"
. World Council of Churches. Archived from
the original
on 6 December 2006
. Retrieved
17 January
2007
McGann, Anthony (2006).
The Logic of Democracy: Reconciling Equality, Deliberation, and Minority Protection
. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
doi
10.3998/mpub.189565
ISBN
978-0-472-09949-8
Rhizome (2 June 2011).
"Near-consensus alternatives: Crowd Wise"
Welcome to the archived Rhizome website for useful resources
. Retrieved
30 May
2022
Inohara, Takehiro (2010). "Consensus building and the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution".
2010 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
. pp.
2841–
2846.
doi
10.1109/ICSMC.2010.5641917
ISBN
978-1-4244-6586-6
S2CID
36860543
Epstein, Lee; Segal, Jeffrey A.; Spaeth, Harold J. (2001). "The Norm of Consensus on the U.S. Supreme Court".
American Journal of Political Science
45
(2):
362–
377.
doi
10.2307/2669346
JSTOR
2669346
Edelman, Paul H.; Klein, David E.; Lindquist, Stefanie A. (2012). "Consensus, Disorder, and Ideology on the Supreme Court".
Journal of Empirical Legal Studies
(1):
129–
148.
doi
10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01249.x
S2CID
142712249
Harvey, Jerry B. (Summer 1974). "The Abilene Paradox and other Meditations on Management".
Organizational Dynamics
(1):
63–
80.
doi
10.1016/0090-2616(74)90005-9
"Consensus Team Decision Making"
Strategic Leadership and Decision Making
. National Defense University. Archived from
the original
on 27 April 2003
. Retrieved
17 January
2007
Tomalin, Barry; Knicks, Mike (2008). "Consensus or individually driven decision-".
The World's Business Cultures and How to Unlock Them
. Thorogood Publishing. p. 109.
ISBN
978-1-85418-369-9
M. Paul Keesler (2008).
"League of the Iroquois"
Mohawk – Discovering the Valley of the Crystals
. North Country Press.
ISBN
9781595310217
. Archived from
the original
on 17 December 2007.
Bruce E. Johansen (1995).
"Dating the Iroquois Confederacy"
. Akwesasne Notes
. Retrieved
17 January
2007
"Climate talks turn to South African indaba process to unlock deal"
Reuters
. 10 December 2016.
Rathi, Akshat (12 December 2015).
"This simple negotiation tactic brought 195 countries to consensus"
Anthony, Mely Caballero (2005).
Regional Security in Southeast Asia: Beyond the ASEAN Way
. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
ISBN
9789812302601
– via Google Books.
Asian Development Bank (2009).
Complaint handling in the rehabilitation of Aceh and Nias : experiences of the Asian Development Bank and other organizations
(PDF)
. Metro Manila, Philippines. p. 151.
ISBN
978-971-561-847-2
OCLC
891386023
{{
cite book
}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link
Ethan Mitchell (2006).
"Participation in Unanimous Decision-Making: The New England Monthly Meetings of Friends"
. Philica. Archived from
the original
on 22 October 2007
. Retrieved
17 January
2007
Dueck, Abe J. (1990).
"Church Leadership: A Historical Perspective"
Direction
19
(2). Kindred Productions:
18–
27
. Retrieved
17 January
2007
Ralph A Lebold (1989).
"Consensus"
Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online
. Archived from
the original
on 13 March 2007
. Retrieved
17 January
2007
Elaine Pagels (1996).
The Origin of Satan: How Christians Demonized Jews, Pagans, and Heretics
. Random House.
ISBN
978-0-679-73118-4
. Retrieved
23 April
2012
"AT 11: Conflict and Church Decision Making: Be clear about process and let everyone be heard - The Anabaptist Network"
. Archived from
the original
on 13 March 2016
. Retrieved
23 April
2012
Vogel, Ezra F. (1975).
Modern Japanese Organization and Decision-making
. University of California Press. p. 121.
ISBN
978-0520054684
"Ringi-Sho"
. Japanese123.com. Archived from
the original
on 11 August 2011
. Retrieved
29 August
2011
Bradner, Scott (1998).
IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures
IETF
doi
10.17487/RFC2418
RFC
2418
. Retrieved
26 August
2020
Hoffman, P.
; Harris, S. (September 2006).
The Tao of IETF: A novice's guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force
IETF
doi
10.17487/RFC4677
. FYI 17.
RFC
4677
Cottone, R. Rocco (2001).
"A Social Constructivism Model of Ethical Decision Making in Counseling"
Journal of Counseling & Development
79
(1):
39–
45.
doi
10.1002/j.1556-6676.2001.tb01941.x
ISSN
1556-6676
"Bureau of Land Management National Natural Resources Policy for Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement and Appropriate Dispute Resolution"
(PDF)
. Bureau of Land Management. 2009. Archived from
the original
(PDF)
on 14 January 2012.
Juliusz, Bardach; Leśnodorski, Bogusław; Pietrzak, Michał (1987).
Historia państwa i prawa polskiego
. Warszawa: Państ. Wydaw. Naukowe. pp.
220–
221.
Francis Ludwig Carsten (1975) [1961].
The new Cambridge modern history: The ascendancy of France, 1648–88
. CUP Archive. pp.
561–
562.
ISBN
978-0-521-04544-5
. Retrieved
11 June
2011
Ekiert, Grzegorz (1998). Lipset, Seymour Martin (ed.). "Veto, Liberum".
The Encyclopedia of Democracy
: 1341.
Buck, John., Villines, Sharon.
We the People: Consenting to a Deeper Democracy
. United States Sociocracy. Info Press, 2017.
Rau, Ted.
Sociocracy - a Brief Introduction.
N.p.: Sociocracy For All, 2022.
Rau, Ted J., Koch-Gonzalez, Jerry.
Many Voices One Song: Shared Power with Sociocracy
. United States Sociocracy For All, 2018.
Further reading
edit
Wikimedia Commons has media related to
Consensus
Leach, Darcy K. (February 2016). "When Freedom Is Not an Endless Meeting: A New Look at Efficiency in Consensus-Based Decision Making".
The Sociological Quarterly
57
(1):
36–
70.
doi
10.1111/tsq.12137
ISSN
0038-0253
S2CID
147292061
Types of majority
Plurality
(relative majority)
Majority
(absolute majority)
Double majority
Supermajority
Consensus
Unanimity
Authority control databases
International
GND
National
United States
France
BnF data
Japan
Israel
Other
Yale LUX
Retrieved from "
Categories
Consensus
Anarchist terminology
Anarchist theory
Collaboration
Community organizing
Democracy
Egalitarianism
Evaluation methods
Group decision-making
Meetings
Working groups
Hidden categories:
CS1 maint: others
CS1 maint: location missing publisher
Articles with Internet Archive links
Articles with short description
Short description matches Wikidata
Use dmy dates from April 2021
Commons category link is on Wikidata
Consensus decision-making
Add topic