[matilda] crisis of consensus

[atw]

When someone who has been involved with Matilda for some time
questions whether or not they want to be part of Matilda anymore (as
happened last night) I think that is a very serious issue.

This came about after a proposal to host an art show for local artists
where some of the money would go to Matilda and some to the artist.

Briefly: this divided the meeting between those I will label
'anticapitalists' and 'anarchists' (though both labels are misnomers
since in reality most probably think of ourselves as both). The
anticapitalist position was that no part of Matilda should be used for
any private finanacial gain. The anarchist perspective (which includes
me) was more against setting such rules and wanted to allow
collectives and individuals more autonomy - ie. trust them to get on
with stuff that doesn't interfere with others projects.

Anyway the problem I see was the way a decision was, or was not,
reached. There was no agreement and the discussion was halted because
it was the type of thing that could have gone on for hours. In fact
the person who proposed the art show said he already felt guilty for
taking up too much time in the meeting.


The default position
--------------------

Because of this a default position was used which seems to be this. No
events can take place unless agreed by everyone at the Monday meeting.
Whether this default position has ever been agreed (consensus) I don't
know. I suspect it's the kind of thing that has just been assumed
without being thought out first. For a building where we want to
encourage people to come in and use the space it may not be the best
idea to start out with a position of 'nothing is allowed'. Another
alternative, and possibly better, default might be: any and all events
are allowed unless there is a consensus that they should not. There
are various other possibilities.

However I think the problem is that we have to fall back on such
default positions at all. Consensus (agreement) can only work properly
when there is adequate time to reach agreement. If the default is used
then it means there is no more consensus (agreement) on an issue than
if we voted. In fact voting might well be preferable to, and fairer
than, a consensus model which doesn't actually reach consensus.

Anyway just thought I'd mention it. I've put it on the agenda for next
week's riveting discussion.

see ya

steve




Independent grassroots news: www.sheffield.indymedia.org.uk



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/162 - Release Date: 05/11/2005