Hacker News Reader

Comment by parineum | Hacker News Reader

That seems like two words for the same thing to me but making the distinction seems like a signalling mechanism to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making alternative political movements care a lot about how decisions are taken. For instance, authors like David Graeber consider that majority voting only makes sense in the context if backed by violence.

So what percent of people are required for "consensus" because it seems like 50%+1 to 100%. There seems to also be an implication that democracy is 50+1 when it isn't. It can require any percentage to reach a decision.

Those two words refer to the same "type" of system where the members make a decision by ascent or descent. Both systems require an agreed upon barrier of acceptance.

They are the same. The US congress reaches decision by consensus.

Consensus is strictly 100% agreement (or at least 0% disagreement). Granted, it's not always possible. But in some setups and given some objectives, it's sometimes possible to have a collective that finds compromises that satisfy everyone (consensus).

> Consensus is not synonymous with unanimity – though that may be a rule agreed to in a specific decision-making process.[1]

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making

IETF for instance, makes the distinction because they do not use a fixed vote threshold, but use a judgement of someone with good judgement, taking all facts into account such as the strength of disagreement.

And of course if that person turns out to have bad judgement they won't listen to him next time.

It is certainly possible for this to become unstable and split into two or more groups. This may work for the IETF which frequently creates and destroys working groups.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com