> The Quakers have used
> consensus to govenr meetings for centuries; and I've been told that
> while the Friends do great progressive work in politics, I know a great
> many ex-quakers who found the consensus governed meetins unbearably
> oppressive.
Sometimes they can be oppressive, but it depends a lot on the particular occasion and the particular people involved. One thing about consensus decision-making in small groups is that the people involved are often long-time acquaintances who know each other very well, and following Robert's Rules would be rather ridiculous among such folk. Some Quakers, just like some non-Quakers, tend to be oppressive people, but they can be stood up to with a little courage. After all, what can oppressive Quakes do to you -- beat you up some night in a dark alley? In practice, Quakers over the centuries have developed various ways of dealing with this sort of "oppression" in suitably decorous, "Friendly" ways. Never you fear.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org ______________________________
From women's eyes this doctrine I derive: They sparkle still the right Promethean fire; They are the books, the arts, the academes, That show, contain, and nourish all the world; Else none at all in aught proves excellent. (Love's Labour's Lost)