In the current version of policy point 10b makes possible for any registered user to completely block decision making by center, except questions of safety. We obtain the dictatorship of minority in the practically pure form.

i disagree. Point 10b says that a registered user can only veto a proposal, if

• (1) it is for a fundamental reason listed in point 1., e.g. "# 1.4. Belorussian of indimediya cannot be the organ of any political party." and
• (2) there has already been a process where the majority makes a sincere effort to *understand* the point of view of the minority, going through points 10.1), 2), 3) and
• (3) the "minority" has the possibility of 10.A): " A) all participants in the consideration agree to accept proposal with the unsolved problems. In this case all unsolved problems are included in the text of proposal and they become the part of the solution accepted."

More than 140 indymedia collectives around the world have used a similar process, as well as many other collectives independently of indymedia, and it leads to a much more participative group than a majoritarian decision-making method.

In practice, what happens with majoritarian decision-making, is that there is insufficient communication, and there are insufficient attempts to improve proposals. With formal consensus decision-making, firstly there is a good chance that people will find a way to make a better proposal through the communication process ((2) in this message), and even if the minority are still unhappy at the end, it is usually clear whether or not the problem is a fundamental problem.

If the criticism by the minority is not something fundamental, they are usually willing to go through option 10.A). They know that their criticism is understood by the rest of the collective, so they do not feel excluded, and they also know that their criticism is written into the text of the proposal, so that it remains part of the public debate, and is not forgotten.

In practice, vetoes happen very rarely in indymedia collectives.

More often, there are people who are unclear about whether they just want their point of view to be understood, or whether they are really willing to make a veto. When other people ask for clarification, either the person with the criticism makes it clear that it is a criticism, but it is not a veto (it is not a "block"), or else he or she says nothing, so there is no veto.

When vetoes do happen (which is rare), it often means that there is a serious problem in the proposal, and the collective is not yet ready, collectively, to tackle the problem, or there are some people who are unwilling to really understand the arguments of the others.

Or sometimes, if it is just one person making the veto, it may be time to modify the decision-making method so that someone's veto rights can be suspended. However, this is a sensitive issue: excluding minorities who "make trouble" is one of the fundamental bases of fascism and authoritarianism.

In the IMC Poland decision-making method, section III.4, we have the hypothetical possibility of putting someone on a list of those people who do not have a right to veto - the decision-making method is the standard method, except that the person being considered does not have the right to veto the proposal about being put on the list, and the deadline for inviting for criticisms of the proposal has to be at least 14 days (compared to 7 days for a normal decision).

However, our collective is over three years old, and as far as I know, nobody is (yet) on this list.

If we are abutted against complete consensus, then it is must: 1) either to clearly prescribe the rigid threshold of admittance to the discussion 2) or to select the right of veto in those who not in the editorial association, but this no longer the consensus:).

Again, i really recommend you read the longer discussions about the formal consensus decision-making algorithms (in English, a few in French, a few translated to Polish), there are many links on:

http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/ConflictResolution e.g.

• Food not Bombs' guide to consensus
• Seeds for change's guide to consensus
• Chiche web, translated from French to Polish

Consensus decision-making is a process, and a lot of that process is good communication: if people make the effort to really understand one another, they generally find that their disagreements about a set of concrete goals (making independent media) are not so fundamental.

Of course, any algorithm for decision-making will have loopholes, but some version of formal consensus has been used with success in most indymedia collectives around the world. This is also what encourages more and more people to participate: we are all in a minority on some issues, and we are more likely to keep participating if we feel that our arguments have, at least, been understood by the others, even if they have not been accepted in a proposal.

A quote from Seeds for change: Consensus is not a new idea, but has been tested and proven around the world. Non-hierarchical societies have existed on the American continent for hundreds of years. Before 1600, five nations - the Cayuga, Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, and Seneca - formed the Haudenosaunee Confederation, working on a consensual basis and which is still in existence today. Each Nation within the Confederacy selects individuals to represent them at confederacy meetings. Issues are discussed until all are in agreement on a common course of action. Never would the majority force their will upon the minority. Similarly no one could force a warrior to go to war against their better judgement.

PS: this comment is editable by registered users - it is a wikified comment, open to corrections by consensus. Here is a trivial edit to test the system.