RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

In my opinion that's a very weak consensus.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Svensson [mailto:paul-dns@svensson.org]
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 3:07 PM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule


On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

>I strongly disagree with the statement that mailing-list silence "signifies
>an
>active acceptance of the resolutions put forth,
>without reservation."  This is definitely not true in my case.  More
>generally, silence can mean a variety of things such as:
>	- Being consumed with regular duties and not having time to spend on
>the list
>	- Not having yet formed a clear opinion
>	- Being of the opinion that the exercise is futile
>	- Being concerned about the validity of the consensus process or
>lack thereof
>	- etc.

I don't see you being silent on the list Chuck, so I don't understand
what "your case" would be, or how it is relevant here.  As I see it,
there are only two reasons for anyone to be silent in the debate:

	1) The outcome is not important enough for them to bother with it,
	2) They accept the consensus of those participating in the debate.

Either way, consensus can only be measured among the participants,
wether there are fifty or 5 billion quiet bystanders, is totally irrelevant.

Anything else is hypocrisy.

	/Paul

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html