[ga] Consensus

[Joe Kelsey <joe@zircon.seattle.wa.us>]

There seems to be a lot of different definitions of the word consensus
floating around.  The "chairs" seem to think that it means 18 out of
336.  Mr. Weinberg seems to think that it means simply the voice of the
chairperson.

Amongst standard-setting bodies (ANSI, IETF, ISO) consensus generally
means one of two things: either nearly unanimous support or, failing
unanimity, no serious objections (i.e., only minor, technical details
standing in the way of unanimity).

Among other bodies, consensus can mean whatever the body decides it
should mean, as long as the definition is arrived at through the
established channels of debate and agreement.  Thus, the GA is free to
define consensus to mean 18 of 336 as long as the agreement is reached
through the normal rules for the GA.  Mr. Corliss is attempting to
insert a new definition of the rules by completely bypassing the normal
procedures of the GA and installing his own ideas simply because he
perceives himself to have the power to do so.  I object strenuously to
Mr. Corliss' attempt to make and "end-run" around the established
procedures of this body and set up his own private world view without a
fight.

I have posted previously that I see that the so-called "sub-lists" serve
the general purpose of informal discussion groups, and I think this is a
valuable service.  I strongly object to anyone attempting to change the
status of these informal discussions to a formal one simply by fiat.
This is supposed to be a world-wide, general consensus group and action
by fiat has absolutely nothing to do with consensus and everything to do
with dictatorship.

Once again, there can be no formal, binding discussion of anything on
the so-called "ga-rules" discussion list unless and until the formal
process of the GA is carried through and a vote has occurred on the
matter.  Until such time, anyone is free to discuss anything that they
want on any one of the so-called "sub-lists", and it will have no effect
on the business of the GA.  Whenever the discussion participants feel
that they have discussed something enough, they are free to bring their
efforts to the attention of the GA, just as any informal discussion
among andy parliamentary body may do so.

/Joe
--
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