get our newsletter or

facebook

Twitter

SFGreenParty
And Dems' boasting about it on Twitter shows most haven't learned anything from Clinton's loss! twitter.com/GreenPartyUS/s…

11 hours ago

SFGreenParty
They're both correct about the police not being on their side! twitter.com/shane_bauer/st…

1 day ago

ajamubaraka
blackagendareport.com/answering-corn… via @blkagendareport there are no shortcuts to building an alternative party. Plus Sanders is not leaving demos

Retweeted 2 days ago

davidcnswanson
On this day in 1986 the Chernobyl Nuclear Plant in Ukraine, USSR, caught fire. This is a good day to oppose nuclear energy.

Retweeted 3 days ago

inthecitylance
Join us tonight, local SF Greens. twitter.com/MMSFOceanBeach…

Retweeted 3 days ago

MMSFOceanBeach
Join @SFGreenParty for our Monthly Meeting in the Mission. We have speakers on #opensource voting & Prop13 Reform… twitter.com/i/web/status/8…

Retweeted 3 days ago

SFGreenParty
It's like he's Mayor of an alternate universe. mis- #LEEdership. twitter.com/mayoredlee/sta…

3 days ago

MMSFOceanBeach
There will also be Willie Brown and Ed Lee Ways. The former, a cul de sac anchored by a bank, the latter a dead end… twitter.com/i/web/status/8…

Retweeted 5 days ago

SFGreenParty
That endorsement was an inconvenient truth. Meanwhile, #yimby Twitter is boasting about their innumeracy. twitter.com/MMSFOceanBeach…

6 days ago

SFGreenParty
You know this pic was supposedly taken on 4/20? If she's going for the stoners, definitely seeking another term! twitter.com/MMSFOceanBeach…

6 days ago

 

Consensus

The SF Green Party uses the consensus process for making most of our decisions, including endorsements.  In the consensus process, we seek the agreement of a supermajority of participants, and also to resolve or mitigate the concerns of the minority in order to achieve the most agreeable decision.

The consensus process starts with a presentation of a proposal by one or more presenters.  After the presentation, the meeting facilitators take a "stack" of questions designed to clarify any parts of the proposal or facts concerning it that are not clear.  The facilitators alternate between calling on male and female participants ("gender stacking") and may call on people out of turn in order to encourage participants who have not previously spoken.

After the clarifying questions are answered, the facilitators take another stack of concerns and affirmations about the proposal.  People with concerns are encouraged to provide "friendly amendments" that will change the proposal to resolve or mitigate their concern; these amendments may be accepted at the option of the presenters.  All such actions are noted in the minutes.  When all concerns have been heard, the facilitators test for consensus.

If there are no remaining concerns that have not been resolved by friendly amendments, consensus is reached and the proposal passes.

If there are remaining concerns, the presenters may withdraw the proposal, or have the facilitators ask those people with concerns to "stand aside."  If all those with concerns agree to stand aside, the proposal still passes by consensus.

A person with a concern about the proposal may not agree to stand aside, especially if they feel that enacting the proposal would not be consistent with our Ten Key Values.  This is called a "blocking" concern.  If there are blocking concerns about a proposal, consensus is not reached.

In cases where we do not reach consensus, the presenters have the option of attempting to pass the proposal by supermajority vote.  Business decisions (i.e., carrying out an existing policy) require a 2/3 threshold, endorsements a 3/4 threshold, and adoption of new policies requires a 4/5 threshold.  Details of our voting procedure are given in our bylaws.