Editing Consensus decision-making (section)

== Similar practices ==
Outside of Western culture, multiple other cultures have used consensus decision-making. One early example is the [[Grand Council of the Six Nations|Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy Grand Council]], which used a 75% supermajority to finalize its decisions,<ref>{{cite book |chapter=League of the Iroquois |author=M. Paul Keesler |year=2008 |title=Mohawk – Discovering the Valley of the Crystals |publisher=North Country Press |isbn=9781595310217 |chapter-url=http://www.paulkeeslerbooks.com/Chap5Iroquois.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071217225720/http://www.paulkeeslerbooks.com/Chap5Iroquois.html |archive-date=17 December 2007 }}</ref> potentially as early as 1142.<ref>{{cite web|title=Dating the Iroquois Confederacy |url=http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/DatingIC.html |access-date=17 January 2007 |author=Bruce E. Johansen |year=1995 |publisher=Akwesasne Notes}}</ref> In the [[Zulu people|Xulu]] and [[Xhosa people|Xhosa]] (South African) process of [[indaba]], community leaders gather to listen to the public and negotiate [[Red line (phrase)|figurative thresholds]] towards an acceptable compromise. The technique was also used during the [[2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-summit-indaba-idUSKBN0TT29C20151210|title=Climate talks turn to South African indaba process to unlock deal|date=10 December 2016|newspaper=Reuters}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://qz.com/572623/this-simple-negotiation-tactic-brought-195-countries-to-consensus-in-the-paris-climate-talks/|title=This simple negotiation tactic brought 195 countries to consensus |first=Akshat|last=Rathi|date=12 December 2015 }}</ref> In [[Aceh]] and [[Nias]] cultures (Indonesian), family and regional disputes, from playground fights to estate inheritance, are handled through a ''musyawarah'' consensus-building process in which parties mediate to find peace and avoid future hostility and revenge. The resulting agreements are expected to be followed, and range from advice and warnings to compensation and exile.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=uUBqeHJdp1oC&pg=PA72|title=Regional Security in Southeast Asia: Beyond the ASEAN Way|first=Mely Caballero|last=Anthony|year=2005|publisher=Institute of Southeast Asian Studies|via=Google Books|isbn=9789812302601}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |url=https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/29208/complaint-handling-rehabilitation.pdf |title=Complaint handling in the rehabilitation of Aceh and Nias : experiences of the Asian Development Bank and other organizations|author=Asian Development Bank|year=2009|isbn=978-971-561-847-2|location=Metro Manila, Philippines|pages=151|oclc=891386023}}</ref>

The origins of [[formal consensus]]-making can be traced significantly further back, to the [[Religious Society of Friends]], or Quakers, who adopted the technique as early as the 17th century.<ref name="Mitchell">{{cite web |url=http://www.philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=14 |title=Participation in Unanimous Decision-Making: The New England Monthly Meetings of Friends |access-date=17 January 2007 |author=Ethan Mitchell |year=2006 |publisher=Philica |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071022090150/http://www.philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=14 |archive-date=22 October 2007 |url-status=dead }}</ref> [[Anabaptists]], including some [[Mennonite]]s, have a history of using consensus decision-making<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.directionjournal.org/article/?676 |title=Church Leadership: A Historical Perspective |access-date=17 January 2007 |first=Abe J. |last=Dueck |year=1990 |publisher=Kindred Productions |journal=Direction |volume=19|issue=2|pages=18–27}}</ref> and some believe Anabaptists practiced consensus as early as the [[Martyrs' Synod]] of 1527.<ref name="Mitchell" /> Some Christians trace consensus decision-making back to the Bible. The Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia references, in particular, Acts 15<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |url=http://www.gameo.org/index.asp?content=http://www.gameo.org/encyclopedia/contents/C6667ME.html |title=Consensus |access-date=17 January 2007 |author=Ralph A Lebold |year=1989 |encyclopedia=Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070313044601/http://www.gameo.org/index.asp?content=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gameo.org%2Fencyclopedia%2Fcontents%2FC6667ME.html |archive-date=13 March 2007 |url-status=dead }}</ref> as an example of consensus in the New Testament.  The lack of legitimate consensus process in the unanimous conviction of Jesus by corrupt priests<ref name="Pagels1996">{{cite book|author1=Elaine Pagels|title=The Origin of Satan: How Christians Demonized Jews, Pagans, and Heretics|url=https://archive.org/details/originofsatan00page|url-access=registration|access-date=23 April 2012|year=1996|publisher=Random House|isbn=978-0-679-73118-4}}</ref> in an illegally held [[Sanhedrin]] court (which had rules preventing unanimous conviction in a hurried process) strongly influenced the views of pacifist Protestants, including the Anabaptists (Mennonites/Amish), Quakers and Shakers. In particular it influenced their distrust of expert-led courtrooms and to "be clear about process" and convene in a way that assures that "everyone must be heard".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.anabaptistnetwork.com/node/166|title=AT 11: Conflict and Church Decision Making: Be clear about process and let everyone be heard - The Anabaptist Network|access-date=23 April 2012|archive-date=13 March 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160313002324/http://www.anabaptistnetwork.com/node/166|url-status=dead}}</ref>

The [[Modified Borda Count]] voting method has been advocated as more 'consensual' than majority voting, by, among others, by [[Ramón Llull]] in 1199, by [[Nicholas Cusanus]] in 1435, by [[Jean-Charles de Borda]] in 1784, by [[Hother Hage]] in 1860, by [[Lewis Carroll|Charles Dodgson]] (Lewis Carroll) in 1884, and by [[Peter Emerson]] in 1986.

===Japanese business===
Japanese companies normally use consensus decision-making, meaning that unanimous support on the board of directors is sought for any decision.<ref>{{cite book|title=Modern Japanese Organization and Decision-making|page=121
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_30T-LDFE2cC|isbn=978-0520054684
|first=Ezra F. |last=Vogel|year= 1975|publisher=University of California Press
}}</ref> A ''ringi-sho'' is a circulation document used to obtain agreement. It must first be signed by the lowest level manager, and then upwards, and may need to be revised and the process started over.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.japanese123.com/ringisho.htm |title=Ringi-Sho |publisher=Japanese123.com |access-date=29 August 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110811175747/http://www.japanese123.com/ringisho.htm |archive-date=11 August 2011 }}<!--get a real source--></ref>

===IETF rough consensus model===
In the [[Internet Engineering Task Force]] (IETF), decisions are assumed to be taken by ''[[rough consensus]]''.<ref>{{Cite IETF|last=Bradner|first=Scott|date=1998|title=IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures|rfc=2418|access-date=26 August 2020|publisher=[[Internet Engineering Task Force|IETF]] }}</ref> The IETF has studiously refrained from defining a mechanical method for verifying such consensus, apparently in the belief that any such codification leads to attempts to "[[game the system]]." Instead, a [[IETF Working Group|working group]] (WG) chair or [[Birds of a Feather (computing)|BoF]] chair is supposed to articulate the "sense of the group."

One tradition in support of rough consensus is the tradition of humming rather than (countable) hand-raising; this allows a group to quickly discern the prevalence of dissent, without making it easy to slip into [[majority rule]].<ref>{{Cite IETF |title=The Tao of IETF: A novice's guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force |rfc=4677 |fyi=17 |last1=Hoffman |first1=P. |authorlink1=Paul Hoffman (engineer) |last2=Harris |first2=S. |date=September 2006 |publisher=[[Internet Engineering Task Force|IETF]] }}</ref>

Much of the business of the IETF is carried out on [[mailing list]]s, where all parties can speak their views at all times.

===Social constructivism model===
In 2001, [[Robert Rocco Cottone]] published a consensus-based model of professional decision-making for counselors and psychologists.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Cottone|first=R. Rocco|date=2001|title=A Social Constructivism Model of Ethical Decision Making in Counseling|url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2001.tb01941.x|journal=Journal of Counseling & Development|language=en|volume=79|issue=1|pages=39–45|doi=10.1002/j.1556-6676.2001.tb01941.x|issn=1556-6676}}</ref> Based on [[social constructivist]] philosophy, the model operates as a consensus-building model, as the clinician addresses ethical conflicts through a process of negotiating to consensus. Conflicts are resolved by consensually agreed on arbitrators who are selected early in the negotiation process.

===US Bureau of Land Management collaborative stakeholder engagement===
The United States [[Bureau of Land Management]]'s policy is to seek to use collaborative stakeholder engagement as standard operating practice for natural resources projects, plans, and decision-making except under unusual conditions such as when constrained by law, regulation, or other mandates or when conventional processes are important for establishing new, or reaffirming existing, precedent.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_and_Renewable_Resources/adr_conflict_prevention.Par.44228.File.dat/ADR.pdf |title=Bureau of Land Management National Natural Resources Policy for Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement and Appropriate Dispute Resolution |year=2009 |publisher=Bureau of Land Management |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120114185803/http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_and_Renewable_Resources/adr_conflict_prevention.Par.44228.File.dat/ADR.pdf |archive-date=14 January 2012 }}</ref>

===Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth===
The [[Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth]] of 1569–1795 used consensus decision-making in the form of ''[[liberum veto]]'' ('free veto') in its [[Sejms]] (legislative assemblies). A type of [[unanimous consent]], the ''liberum veto'' originally allowed any member of a Sejm to veto an individual law by shouting ''Sisto activitatem!'' (Latin: "I stop the activity!") or ''Nie pozwalam!'' (Polish: "I do not allow!").<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Juliusz|first1=Bardach |title=Historia państwa i prawa polskiego |last2=Leśnodorski|first2=Bogusław|last3=Pietrzak|first3=Michał|date=1987|publisher=Państ. Wydaw. Naukowe |location=Warszawa|pages=220–221}}</ref> Over time it developed into a much more extreme form, where any Sejm member could unilaterally and immediately force the end of the current session and nullify any previously passed legislation from that session.<ref name="Carsten1961">{{cite book|author=Francis Ludwig Carsten|title=The new Cambridge modern history: The ascendancy of France, 1648–88 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FzQ9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA562|access-date=11 June 2011|year=1961 |publisher=CUP Archive|isbn=978-0-521-04544-5 |pages=561–562}}</ref> Due to excessive use and sabotage from neighboring powers bribing Sejm members, legislating became very difficult and weakened the Commonwealth. Soon after the Commonwealth banned ''liberum veto'' as part of its [[Constitution of 3 May 1791]], it dissolved under pressure from neighboring powers.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Ekiert|first=Grzegorz|date=1998|editor-last=Lipset|editor-first=Seymour Martin|title=Veto, Liberum |journal=The Encyclopedia of Democracy|volume=4|pages=1341}}</ref>

===Sociocracy===
[[Sociocracy]] has many of the same aims as consensus and is in applied in a similar range of situations.<ref>
Buck, John., Villines, Sharon. ''We the People: Consenting to a Deeper Democracy''. United States Sociocracy. Info Press, 2017.</ref> It is slightly different in that broad support for a proposal is defined as the lack of disagreement (sometimes called 'reasoned objection') rather than affirmative agreement.<ref>Rau, Ted. ''Sociocracy - a Brief Introduction.'' N.p.: Sociocracy For All, 2022.</ref> To reflect this difference from the common understanding of the word consensus, in Sociocracy the process is called gaining 'consent' (not consensus).<ref>Rau, Ted J., Koch-Gonzalez, Jerry. ''Many Voices One Song: Shared Power with Sociocracy''. United States Sociocracy For All, 2018.</ref>