Allow clearence of topic with 80% Support

What is happening in this group / party is a distortion of the principles of equity. Some people confuse equity with equality. Till the distinction is not clear to everyone and accepted there can be no progress here.

TheDentist, loom.io is supposed to be sending email updates at least every 24 hours. But it seems something is broken at loom.io.

I think as long as we cannot trust each other to build something together, each tool is going to fail us. It is not a technology or tool issue, I think it is a trust issue.

I feel it is a problem about too diverse a set of people trying to define their common ground.

I think people here misunderstand the rights of the minority in a consensus process (or a democratic process).
Firstly, it is not the right of just one person to block the decisions of everyone else. That is not Democracy, that's Dictatorship.
Secondly, its the right of minority (and everyone else) to put forth their reasons of the decisions they make. A minority has the right to give a proposal that will be closer to consensus.It does not however has the right to simply push its proposal down onto others by saying "its either this proposal or block"

Keeping these reasons in mind I created the process below. The process below gives a person with minority view the chance to make the proposal evolve in a democratic manner. If the minority is unable to produce any counter-proposal that is more in consensus, then the proposal passes.
The current process of consensus we are practicing is flawed. It puts all the pressure of reaching consensus on the majority. It is the duty of the minority (not just the majority) to work towards consensus.
Simply saying that the process i wrote below is too tough to understand is not gonna cut it.
I agree that it may not be a perfect system, but we need to try it to understand what would be better.

1) Who are you to create this process so that I must accept it ?
2) Why is it necessary for me to give a counter-proposal for every proposal that I reject ?
3) I have always given crisp and cogent reasons for why I oppose Internet Freedom as a Pirate Point and why I counter propose "a democratic Internet". Instead the discussion is taken into irrelevant areas.
4) If the rights / voices of minorities are not heard, the where is the claimed equality and democracy which is posted on the website ? Today it is just me, tomorrow it may be a hundred others like me.

1) I am not forcing you to accept anything. I have not even started a proposal.
2) Because simply blocking a proposal does not help the consensus process. You need to give better solutions that will be considered win-win
3) In the other thread I asked how internet freedom can be harmful to the society. It was not me who derailed the discussion after that. Simply giving a counter proposal is not enough, you counter proposal must be closer to consensus. The counter proposal you gave is not closer to consensus. The process i described encourages such proposals. When we create the proposal for democratic internet, blaise will be the first to veto it. Then you will understand my point, when your majority supported proposal is blocked.
4) Who said anything about silencing the minorities. Right now the burden to reach consensus is on the majority. I want distribute the burden.

At the end of the day, if there are decisions taken by a majority vote it sets up minorities.

1) You asked me to accept a procedure not a proposal

2) I am not blocking. It is highly likely that 1 person can point out flaws without being able to propose anything better (which another person can).

3) The issue of internet freedom being harmful has nothing to do with the price of fish. I am on the very basis for internet freedom being impossible under the present regime. I cannot give a counter-proposal for something I absolutely disagree with -- or till somebody shows me where i have erred. Mr Blaise can do what he wants - he has free will. I have no personal interest in getting some particular wordings into the Pirate Points, but shall certainly oppose anything obnoxious..

@kshytiaalifakr
1) I did no such thing. I invited everyone to give comments on how the process can be improved.
2) That one person that sees the flaws has the right to point them out. They should not however get veto power. If you see flaws, you can put forth your arguments and try to rally other members to vote "No" on that proposal. You don't need to give a counter-proposal to vote "No". All you need is to get minimum 20% members to vote "No" till a fix to the flaw can be found.

Also understand that what you point as flaws might not be flaws in the eyes of other members.
Equality gives you the right to vote of equal weight. It gives you the right to put forth your arguments.
If 5 people vote "yes" and 1 person "blocks" with no attempt to reach consensus, how is that equality.
In essence, you are asking the 5 people to bow down and accept the terms of just one person.

PS: All percentages in the procedure are adjustable.

Not true.

I improved your process by giving a simpler, scalable, more efficient and faster consensus evaluation method. The flaw you perceived is that my proposal has no means for generating a counter-proposal, which I don't perceive to be a flaw at all.

Have you stopped to consider that a "block" may be applied when somebody believes that a certain path is absolutely unacceptable. Otherwise why have a block facility in the first place.

I think a block is a good tool when used judiciously by competent people with integrity and vision but a disaster when used as a political device by the mediocre as a bargaining chip.