Consensus Opinion Agreement

Since consensus is about general agreement among the members of a group, the use of generality before consensus is like general consent. Therefore, the modifier is usually redundant in the well-known expression of general consensus. Many people simply think of consensus as an expanded voting method, where everyone has to vote in the same way. Since unanimous unanimity of this type rarely manifests itself in groups of more than one member, groups attempting to apply this type of procedure are usually either extremely frustrated or compulsive. Either decisions are never made (resulting in the fall of the group, their transformation into a social group that does not perform any task), or they are made in secret, or one group or individual dominates the rest. Sometimes a majority, sometimes a minority, sometimes an individual who employs “the Bloc” dominates. But no matter how it is done, there is NO CONSENSUS. [40] The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) believes that decisions are taken by general consensus. [67] The IETF has carefully given up on defining a mechanical method of verifying such a consensus, apparently convinced that such codification leads to attempts to “play the system.” Instead, a working group chair (colocation) or BoF president must express the “sense of the group.” The best advice is to store the words, but if you have to use “consensus of opinion” or “general consensus,” be prepared to defend it against the legions who believe even the fiber of their being that it is false. However, advice on the use of “consensus” never appears in the Chicago Manual of Style or the Associated Press Stylebook, except as an orthicle holder.

(Later.) Even Theodore M.