What does 'consensus' really mean? [was Re: Charter.txt]

[David Weitzman <da...@optonline.net>]

Berin Loritsch wrote:
> we need to come to community consensus.

Everyone else wrote:
> Blah di blah!  We aren't capable of reaching consensus!  It'll all end in
tears!

For me the word consensus means a bit more than it does for many people.  I
took a course this summer out of an urban and regional planning department
about conflict resolution -- negotiation and mediation.  It was very
enlightening.  You might want to try reading something by Lawrence Susskind
(http://web.mit.edu/publicdisputes/) or browsing around Google
(http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Law/Organizations/Alternative_Dispu
te_Resolution/?tc=1 and similar).

It turns out that consensus building is not quite as straightforward as it
seems, but can be extremely effective when implemented properly.  On the
other hand, some methods of 'consensus building' really just lead to more
unpleasantness.

>From what I've read, I'm somewhat suspicious of the notion that everything
can be worked out in a semi-informal way by majority vote.  There are some
big issues on the table.  It would be interesting if Apache started a
mediation committee of neutral facilitators, but I don't expect such a thing
to actually happen (it'd be extremely cool though, and might prove to be a
tremendous asset given the current changing state of things).

There's actually quite a lot of interesting stuff involved in consensus
building, but I don't really know the internet sources.  Here is just one
example of the sort of things people need to think about.

**Interests vs. Positions**
Bob's position (a suggestion course of action or judgment): Steady
development of Phoenix must continue!
Bob's interest: What I really want is for my legacy code to continue working

John Smith suggests: What if the uber-container was completely Phoenix
compatible from the start?  Trying to implement several forms of
compatibility might even help us to maintain a modular code structure with
healthy abstraction.

Bob's response: I guess that would work out, but what about issues A, B, and
C (i.e. short term before uber-container is ready for production)?

(at this point everyone discusses how A, B, and C might be addressed, etc.
A, B, and C should probably be related to a clearly identified interest, but
such procedural policies are specified in the 'ground rules')

It's really important to distinguish interests from positions.
**end example**

There are a lot of sound principles, like 'ground rules' (discussion happens
in an organized and respectful fashion, etc.  Ideally the community agrees
on ground rules together), 'joint-gains' (everything doesn't have to be all
or nothing at all -- be creative and look for solutions that don't ignore
anyone's concerns) and a bunch of other cool stuff.  Not only that, the
principles are not just abstract speculation -- they've been proven to work
time and time again.

This is somewhat off the topic of software development though, so I'll shut
up for now ;)

Dave


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: What does 'consensus' really mean? [was Re: Charter.txt]

[David Weitzman <da...@optonline.net>]

David Weitzman wrote:
> This is somewhat off the topic of software development though, so I'll
shut
> up for now ;)

I've started a small wiki page at
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?OpenSourceManagement where general open source
management issues can be discussed.  Maybe someone in Avalon has a
reflection to insert.  Whatever.  The mailing list is busy enough without my
help (you've had at least one casualty already!).  In fact, I mentioned
confused mailing lists in the little content that there is on the wiki.

Anyway, I'll pop back into lurker mode now.

David Weitzman


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: What does 'consensus' really mean? [was Re: Charter.txt]

[David Weitzman <da...@optonline.net>]

Leo Sutic wrote:
> excellent message. I have thought about the interest/position
> problem and basically reached the conclusion that a group
> where people can't be open about their interests as opposed
> to their positions is pretty much doomed to not working.

That's quite a sharp observation -- you've stumbled upon the negotiator's
dillemma.  The idea is that some people cannot, often for quite valid
reasons, be completely honest about their interests.  The 'natural' event
when two random people are negotiating is that each one will fear exposing
his interests.  For example, here's one interest that a person might not
voice: "I wasn't so happy about the @author proposal -- I've worked
extremely hard I feel I deserve recognition for it."  To say such a thing
might sound selfish.

Here's a better example, though.  Bob wants to buy something from Joe.  Bob
thinks it looks like $50 dollars worth of gadget, Joe knows that it's only
really worth $39.95.

Bob: How much does it cost?
Joe: How much will you pay for it?
Bob: Hmmm. $50 dollars
Joe could leave it at that and be quite happy, but he thinks he can get more
out of this sucker
Joe: Are you trying to con me? It worth at *least* 65
Bob: $58
Joe: Ok

In this situation, both 'players' are trying to hide their intial interests
because they don't want to be manhandled.  What do they really want?  Bob
wants to buy a trinket and Joe wants to sell one.  Joe, unfortunately, knows
some key information (the actuall price) and is well aware of the advantage
that he has from the start.  Both players end up 'claiming value' -- trying
to get as much as they can, rather than achieving a mutually acceptable
compromise.

That's why mediation works so well.  All parties can trust a mediator with
confidential information and he can use it to move the discussion towards
the mutual gain outcome.

http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/lax7543.htm

I'm going to try to find my photocopied version of Lax and Sebenius's
article on the Negotiator's Dillemma.  It can never hurt to read it another
time.

I think the problem can be solved if everyone is committed to acheiving the
best possible outcome, and if everyone is receptive to the subtle hints of
interest behind every position -- does that position belong with a new
interest you haven't discussed before?

Any way, I'm off now.

David Weitzman


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: What does 'consensus' really mean? [was Re: Charter.txt]

[Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>]

Leo Sutic wrote:
> 
>>From: David Weitzman [mailto:daveweit@optonline.net] 
>>
>>**Interests vs. Positions**
>>Bob's position (a suggestion course of action or judgment): 
>>Steady development of Phoenix must continue! 
>>
>>Bob's interest: 
>>What I really want is for my legacy code to continue working
> 
> 
> David,
> 
> excellent message. I have thought about the interest/position
> problem and basically reached the conclusion that a group
> where people can't be open about their interests as opposed
> to their positions is pretty much doomed to not working.

Bingo.

-- 
Stefano Mazzocchi                               <st...@apache.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

RE: What does 'consensus' really mean? [was Re: Charter.txt]

[Leo Sutic <le...@inspireinfrastructure.com>]

> From: David Weitzman [mailto:daveweit@optonline.net] 
>
> **Interests vs. Positions**
> Bob's position (a suggestion course of action or judgment): 
> Steady development of Phoenix must continue! 
>
> Bob's interest: 
> What I really want is for my legacy code to continue working

David,

excellent message. I have thought about the interest/position
problem and basically reached the conclusion that a group
where people can't be open about their interests as opposed
to their positions is pretty much doomed to not working.

/LS


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

RE: What does 'consensus' really mean? [was Re: Charter.txt]

["Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>]

> This is somewhat off the topic of software development
> though, so I'll shut up for now ;)

Actually, it was a nice message, and quite germaine for community developed
software.  :-)

	--- Noel


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>