The key lies in how this happens in practice. I propose that we can distinguish at least four types of consensus at meetings: imposed consensus, acclaimed consensus, basic consensus, and liberal consensus (Haug 2015). In short, the difference between these lies in the possibility of expressing dissent: even within the core team (product manager, lead designer, lead engineer), they must absolutely seek agreement on important decisions, but there is still no consensus. Everyone has their area of decision-making power, but if there are trade-offs between domains, the product manager is the person who is ultimately responsible for the call. A consensus of a small group of drafters cannot put an end to guidelines and guidelines approved by a wider range of drafters. For example, some editors may agree with the Edit Warring, but it does not lose sight of the project-wide consensus against Edit-Warring; A small group of editors may want to promote an original theory or host personal information, but these activities are not permitted by Wikipedia policy. Instead, drafters who wish to amend the established guidelines should endeavour to update and amend the guideline, which reflects actual consensus and practice at the project level. The consensus on the quäker[19] is supposed to be effective because it introduces a simple and proven structure that moves a group towards unity. The queker model should allow individual voices to be heard while providing a mechanism for managing disagreements. [5] [20] [21] If the group can identify compliant areas, it must continue where the group shares the same view. A complicated argument can involve several problems and some issues may be more controversial than others. But disagreement on one point should not prevent consensus on another.

It is not useful to expect full and complete agreement on every aspect of the dispute. Work on the issues for which there is common ground and repeat the remaining problems later, if necessary. In 2001, Robert Rocco Cottone published a consensus model of professional decision-making for consultants and psychologists. [69] Based on social-constructivist philosophy, the model functions as a consensus model, as the clinician addresses ethical conflicts through a consensus negotiation process. Disputes are resolved by mutually agreed arbitrators selected at an early stage of the negotiation process. Consensus is not the same as unanimity. Every discussion should involve a good faith effort to get along and understand each other. But once people have had the opportunity to present their point of view, it may be necessary to ignore someone or give them less weight to move forward with what the group considers the best.

. . .