Occupy Portland Consensus Philosphy

Occupy Portland Open Consensus Philosophy

Open Consensus: a framework for building consensus in an open assembly

[This proposal results from a series of Occupy Portland General Assembly discussions on 10/6, 10/7, and 10/8, referred to open meetings on 10/7, 10/8, and 10/10 for further development. This proposal, as amended below, was consensed by 90%+ of the 10/10 7pm General Assembly with no blocks and 9 stand asides. This agreement, like all decisions, remains a fluid process and can and should be revised and re-proposed as we gain experience.]

OPEN CONSENSUS PROPOSAL
(as revised and consensed 10pm Monday, 10/10/11)

After discussion of a proposal , facilitators will ask to “see the degree of agreement of the assembly”, by asking who agrees, who disagrees, and who stands aside. These proportions will always be recognized and recorded, as the basis for further development of the proposal, and/or autonomous action by those that agree.
Stand asides will be distinguished from abstentions. Stand asides refer to those that have concerns with the proposal but do not block it, and will be recorded and count towards the degree of agreement. Abstentions are those that lack adequate information or investment to affect the decision, and will not be counted.
The notetaker will announce a “rough estimate” of the degree of agreement. Then, if there is dispute about whether a threshold has been reached, anyone may ask for an actual count.

If there is very strong support for a proposal, the facilitators may ask to see if there are any remaining blocking concerns. If there are not, this can be considered a “full consensus of the assembly”. This has the greatest legitimacy for action on behalf of the whole.

In limited situations, particularly urgent ones, an agreement of 90% or more of the assembly, regardless of blocks, can be considered an “agreement of the assembly”. Depending on the proportion, this has relatively less legitimacy as “speaking for the whole” and should be used cautiously with understanding that there are unresolved major concerns.
If it’s important for a proposal to “speak for the whole,” full consensus will always be sought first. If it cannot be reached, the assembly will engage in at least two rounds of seeking changes to the proposal that adequately address the blocking concerns, either between assemblies or, for especially urgent matters, within the same assembly. Those that block are responsible for meeting with proponents and trying to address all the needs.
If, after at least two rounds, there remain blocking concerns, proponents or facilitators may ask the assembly, “Is this proposal so urgent or otherwise necessary that we are willing to override the blocking concerns of up to 10% of the assembly?” If ≥90% of the assembly agree to do so, then the proposal may be considered an “agreement of the assembly” with only ≥90% agreement.

All important information regarding pending and agreed proposals will be posted at Info and on the web, in such a way as to be easily accessible.

Background


We are an open assembly, designed to welcome the 99% — with new people always arriving, people with profoundly different perspectives, experiences, needs, values, ideas. This diversity is valuable, a source of wealth.

A core purpose for the assembly is for us to hear each other, to discover who agrees on what, and who disagrees. Those that agree can find each other and take action together. Those that disagree can find each other, discuss and debate, and create new solutions that take more perspectives into account, building broader consensus.

Most consensus tools are designed for groups with consistent, well-trained participation rooted in a well-defined common purpose. Such consensus practices build trust and understanding over time, weaving people together. In this context, blocks and stand asides and other tools are gifts that support the process by ensuring that “minority” concerns are heard, understood, and addressed.

In an open assembly, however, mechanically using these same tools can distort and mask the real complexity, diversity, and power of the assembly. For example, in a group of people unfamiliar with the process and each other, blocks can amplify those with confident or contrarian voices far more than everyone else; similarly, the “pressure to consense” can silence those with useful concerns and result in a superficial appearance of consensus without its substance; and the tendency to consider anything less than full consensus a “failure” can mask the profound value of partial agreement as a basis for action.

This “open consensus” proposal is an attempt to adapt consensus tools to better achieve the core goals

How To Use Open Consensus


There are very different kinds of proposals that come to the assembly: how urgent is it? how much does it affect everyone? how logistical is it? how political is it? etc. Depending on such differences, different outcomes can be sought.

Often, the most valuable outcome of bringing a proposal to an assembly is to discover who agrees to it, so that groups and individuals can act autonomously with that information in mind.
Often, the most valuable outcome is to discover who has strong concerns with a proposal, and what they are, so that more work can be done to create a more comprehensive solution.
Sometimes, however, it’s important for the assembly to know that a proposal can be understood to “speak for the whole”. This confers a particular legitimacy.

Which outcome is needed for which proposals is something we hope to explore together in practice. “Open consensus” is an attempt to formalize a process that can support all the outcomes above, as needed.

Potential Examples
Rodrigo proposes a resolution to demand that bankers have a salary cap. 60% of the assembly agrees to it. Rodrigo sets a meeting time to get together with those that agree to distribute flyers, write congresspeople, etc. (Such literature may indicate that 60% of an assembly of Occupy Portland agreed to the demand.)

Desiree proposes an action to occupy Umpqua Bank offices to stop clearcutting. 40% of the assembly agrees to it, but 50% of the assembly agrees to an action to occupy Wells Fargo to stop Arizona anti-immigrant policing. Both groups set up times to meet and plan, while also setting up a meeting of those with particularly strong feelings one way or the other to see if a combined or linked action is possible, to be brought back as a revised proposal.

Allison proposes that alcohol not be consumed in the encampment; 80% of the assembly agrees. It’s referred to the safety, kids, sexual assault, and other logistics committees for further action, with understanding of the weight of support for the idea. At the same time, those with the greatest ideological and logistical concerns with the proposal meet with some of those supporting it to address the concerns.

Thami proposes the open consensus framework as a process of decision-making. 80% of the assembly agrees. Groups discuss further, refine the proposal, and at the next GA 90% agree. While this can when necessary be acted on as an “agreement of the assembly”, there remain some important concerns. Several groups continue to work on addressing those and refining the proposal. Deep discussion ensues, combined with growing experience with the process. New people constantly enter, being trained in the evolving process (including the concerns outstanding). Eventually in two weeks, full consensus (of the 700 at general assembly) is reached except for three people: a person that has blocked any ideas other than absolute consensus, accusing those who try to meet and talk of being infiltrators; and two new participants arriving for the first time who think any form of consensus is hopeless. This is considered a strong agreement of the assembly — though not a full consensus. Everyone involved is proud of their work, has learned a lot, understands the process much better, and has stronger relationships with each other.

 

Please discuss this in our forums.