"We should hold a protest outside the Mayor's office."
So began a typical conversation at a political action meeting I attended in 2015. The discussion frequently went one of two ways. One option was disagreement — someone may raise a concern or objection like "Why should we focus on the Mayor's office when we should be trying to reach people in more populated areas?" or "We need to focus on fundraising right now, not action." Such disagreements could cascade into potentially endless debates, consuming our limited meeting time and rarely leading to consensus. Another, and in my opinion worse, option was lack of debate. A few might voice approval, and then someone would declare: "It looks like we have consensus." Over time, I grew wary of that phrase because it was almost always a lie. Rather than reflecting genuine commitment, universal approval, or even general non-opposition, it signified a group of people hesitant to face the potential discord of scenario #1. Consequently, only a few enthusiastic individuals would participate, later resenting those who abstained from a plan "the group" had supposedly endorsed.
Read Article: https://blog.holochain.org/distributed-collective-action-network/