Talk:Consensus decision-making

Relation to consensus article

There is a separate, short, article on consensus to contain definitions of consensus from computer science, and give a short overview with examples to those not interested in the decision making implications. If that structure is clunky, then the title 'consensus' should be used for all of this material, resulting in a very long article that would have to cover both technical and poltical uses of the term. probably undesirable. A proposal to merge the two articles was discussed in May 2006 (see Archive 1). The result was No merge.

New history section!

Hello! I have been working on History section for this article in my personal space for some weeks. Today I felt finally ready to boldly add it to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making#History

I'm interested to hear what people think. I have leaned quite heavily on The origins of collective decision making by Andy Blunden and Anarchism and the Movement for a New Society by Andrew Cornell.

I hope this contribution is seen as useful, and that it might precipitate further improvements to the article. For now I'll remove the 2 history related 'To-dos' from this Talk page :) DougInAMugtalk 22:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Grnrchst I see you made some edits to the history section some months ago: removing the ngrams graph, adding the globalization banner and then removing the bit about literary use.

I wrote the section over a year ago in an effort to reduce 'original research' conjecture over consensus origins. Grassroots literature attempts to connect consensus with more ancient or indigenous practices, like that of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy Grand Council, despite there being no sources to that effect. This motivated my inclusion of the ngrams graph, and the bit about literary use. I have no interest in focusing on the US more than necessary, but my best effort research does lead me to the conclusion that "consensus decision-making" did in fact originate there. If you have some good secondary sources to support a different conclusion, please let me know and I'll incorporate them.

As it stands, I would propose reverting the addition globalization banner and the removal of the bit about literary use. I liked the ngrams graph, but can see that it may not add enough benefit for the general readership. DougInAMugtalk 18:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Douginamug: Hey! Thanks for explaining your edits to the section, reducing original research is important. I'd be happy to remove the globalize tag if the sourcing really isn't there for non-US topics, I was just surprised at how much it focused on the American New Left when I came across it (not realising it may have been far worse before). As for the bit about the literature, I think I'd be happy to restore that if we dropped the "Despite similar practices being observed in different cultures throughout history", because that read to me as synthesis. Apologies if I was a bit too blunt with my changes, I appreciate the work you've done here and elsewhere. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Grnrchst I have removed the globalize tag for now, let's see what history the future digs up :) I have not restored the "Despite similar practices...", and think it reads better. I added that sentence defensively, to try and ward off attempts to originate consensus decision-making in functionally similar but historically disparate practices (and direct people to that section.) DougInAMugtalk 22:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

"Blocking" section doesn't describe blocking

The heading "Blocking" explains pretty much every step in the flow-chart *other than* blocking, although it dances around what blocking is by describing various ways to avoid it. Should the heading be changed? Or should the bulleted list be expanded to describe the blocking action in the flowchart? 2620:15C:2D3:205:A6D6:D3D0:9CE2:2EE6 (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 14 September 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 16:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

---

Consensus decision-making → Consensus – Given that Consensus already redirects here, and that Consensus (disambiguation) exists, I would like to seek "consensus" on whether we should move the article on Consensus decision-making to Consensus (sorry for all the puns). I'm convinced that consensus is a more WP:CONCISE title while making minimal noticeable sacrifices to WP:PRECISE. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - While I think that that might match how we on Wikipedia use the term, I think that "decision-making" is important for clarity. The name is for our readers' understanding. Compare to: Group decision-making, and other members of Category:Decision-making and Category:Group decision-making. - jc37 17:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I actually think the disambiguation page should be moved to Consensus instead. I don't think consensus decision-making is any more the primary topic than say scientific consensus. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article influenced how the governance system of Python was decided - wrongly?

I just stumbled upon an interesting reference to this article. In 2018, the creator and "Benevolent Dictator for Life" of Python (computer language), Guido van Rossum, retired. Later that year, the community gathered to vote on a new governance system. In Python Enhancement Proposal 8001, they choice to use the Condorcet method with one of three points of reasoning being "2. It is consensus decision-making", linking to this article. However, the #Condorcet_Consensus section no longer exists on this article, nor any reference to Condorcet!

I just wanted to share this, motivates me to improve this article further, and hopefully others. DougInAMugtalk 12:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)