Re: [ga] Santiago DNSO GA Schedule - Is a full day needed ?

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

All,

  To my knowledge I don't believe that anyone has mentioned
"Unanimity" in the context of this thread.

  I should also be observed that Kent Crispin suggests a "Consensus
FORM" that is inconsistent with the White Paper and the MoU.
Consensus must be measurable or otherwise quantifiable.

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 11:46:13PM +0100, Michael Froomkin wrote:
> [...]
> > This is unacceptable and unwarranted and does not represent a consensus
> > of the working group.  I most strenuously object.
> > I further submit that any procedure which claims this report is the
> > result of a consensus of the working group in which I participated in
> > seriously flawed.
>
> Throughout all proceedings of the DNSO we should understand the word
> "consensus" to mean "rough consensus" as exemplified by the IETF.
> The dictionary definition sometimes gives the impression that
> "consensus" means "unanimity", and that is not what is intended.  It
> sometimes happens that an IETF WG generates a product despite
> continuous, strenuous, and vociferous objections from individuals who
> are members of the group.
>
> It should be apparent that a rule that requires unanimity for
> progress would make things very difficult -- the classic instance of
> the "tyranny of the minority"...
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
> kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208