Consensus

Commons are, by definition, self-governing, and the governance of a commons often requires decisions to be made. Usually, the decision-making process will be aimed at some kind of consensus. However, there is divided opinion about the meaning of that term. Originally the term “consensus” had a rather vague meaning. Different people have interpreted it either to mean “general consensus” or something more like unanimity — i.e., everyone is in agreement.

One can argue that defining “consensus” by itself, separately from process, is mistaken, and the Wikipedia article is helpful on Consensus decision-making.

Official standards bodies like ISO offer documentation around consensus. ISO have for decades offered a definition, since 1996 or earlier:

“consensus: General agreement, characterized by the absence of sustained opposition to substantial issues by any important part of the concerned interests and by a process that involves seeking to take into account the views of all parties concerned and to reconcile any conflicting arguments.
NOTE Consensus need not imply unanimity.”

On the other side, an article by Ted Rau says, describing Consent decision making:

“You can think of consent as a version of consensus.
But instead of asking everyone, “Do you agree?”, we ask, “Do you object?” If no one objects, there is consent. ”

• We have a topic on Sociocracy. They use the term “consensus” (pejoratively) to mean more like unanimity; and “consent” for essentially the same concept as “consensus” here.

• Back in 2008, one involved individual gave his opinion about what consensus means.
• This article points out some dangers in the use of the ISO definition, and related process.