<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.opendemocracy.net" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>open Democracy News Analysis - The Consensors,  - Comments</title>
 <link>http://www.opendemocracy.net/blog/peter_emerson/the_consensors</link>
 <description>Comments for &quot;The Consensors, &quot;</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>The Consensors, </title>
 <link>http://www.opendemocracy.net/blog/peter_emerson/the_consensors</link>
 <description>&lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot;&gt;
The role of the consensors in consensus decision-making is a fairly new one, so a word or two on that.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p class=&quot;MsoNormal&quot;&gt;
They are independent and neutral, as would be a referee, and their role is three-fold.  They therefore shouldn’t really participate in the debate, (and I apologise for the&lt;br /&gt;
fact that I did actually make one suggestion, just to help things get going). &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.opendemocracy.net/blog/peter_emerson/the_consensors&quot; class=&quot;read-more&quot; title=&quot;Read the rest of this posting.&quot;&gt;Read the rest of this post...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.opendemocracy.net/blog/peter_emerson/the_consensors&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>http://www.opendemocracy.net/blog/peter_emerson/the_consensors#comment</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.opendemocracy.net/blog/credibility_seminar">Credibility Seminar</category>
 <pubDate>Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:15:52 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Peter Emerson</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">35926 at http://www.opendemocracy.net</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
