Back

@scottishwobbly consensus is bad actually, it means one person can block everyone else

@radikalgrafitio consensus isn't the same thing as unanimity, one person can try all they like to block shit, if the overwhelming majority of the group disagree then they wouldn't be able to block anything. I didn't say direct democracy because it's not feasible to function that way in a group without formal structure

@radikalgrafitio what would you rec instead?

@scottishwobbly well, consensus is an actual formal discussion making procedure though, which includes blocks, which people do use
maybe you meant something different, but in the context this seemed most likely

also, if you have a group without a formal structure it still has an informal structure, so it tends to be result in the most popular, more confidant, longer term members having disproportionate influence, with structures this can be managed to some degree

you also call this a federation, but a federation a a set of groups which federate together and make some decisions collectivity
what your describing is a network, which is fine, both federations and networks have there uses, and federations can probably form out of networks, but they are different things

@radikalgrafitio a federation of worker co-ops and community assemblies is what the proposal aims towards, but it's more a loose network yeah, also honestly this is what I meant by consensus, nothing complicated

@scottishwobbly @radikalgrafitio
You'll probably find, esp. in the context of NVDA / climate focused groups that when you say "consensus" people will already have an expectation of a specific process, probably very similar to this:
https://www.seedsforchange.org.uk/resources
If that's not what you mean, avoiding the word will avoid confusion.